SSCL: We have been unable to agree on several matters with the defendant’s legal representatives. For that reason we are now issuing court proceedings. The last part of this entails submitting an application for anonymity which will protect the personal details of all claimants from public view. We envisage to have this completed over the next few weeks and we will then submit the claim to the High Court.

Gambling Companies: In order to be able to gather all the required information we will be sending a questionnaire to all claimants. This will assist us to further understand people’s gambling habits and how they could have been exacerbated by the gambling companies. We will also be publishing an FAQ section which we believe will be of great assistance to all the claimants.  

Zellis: We have agreed directions with the defendant concerning how the claim will proceed. We have now been provided with an updated timetable and we will be ensuring to submit the relevant documentation required. We will provide a further update in due course. 

Capita: Further to the case management conference that took place in the High Court in London on 18 and 19 June, we would like to provide you with an overview and update of the hearing.

It has been established and agreed by Capita that as a result of the data breach they have failed to adhere to certain aspects of UK GDPR in respect of your personal data. This is a positive and welcome step forward in establishing an admission of liability.

The Court has also made further directions in this claim including Capita filing a defence, which they have failed to do, we expect to receive this by the end of July. The High Court will also be listing a further hearing which will be scheduled for October 2025.

In the meantime, we are working diligently with Capita to address matters raised in the hearing and we will provide an update when we receive Capita’s defence. 

Arnold Clark: We have not been able to reach an agreement with the defendants and we will now be issuing court proceedings in the High Court. This was delayed due to the onboarding of additional claimants.  We expect this to be done in the next few weeks. 

Google/Microsoft: We have corresponded with both Google and Microsoft who have provided insufficient responses to us. We are now sending them Letters of Claim, which is the first step to issue court proceedings.

South Staffs Water: We have been unable to agree a mechanism to proceed with the case with the other side. We sought the court’s guidance and a case management conference is listed to take place in July. We hope this provides both sides with much-required directions. 

We have issued claims against British Gas, Opus Gas, Corona, Maxen Power, Scottish Power, Total energies, EON and SSE. All cases which have been issued have been stayed pending the Supreme Court judgement of Expert Tooling. This case will provide some much-needed guidance with how a case concerning hidden commission can proceed. 

In the interim we are issuing court proceedings on several other cases and corresponding with several defendants with the aim of issuing the case to court or settling the case.

Radius Cases

These cases are still progressing towards settlement, with most being at the stage where quantum is being discussed with the insurers. The majority of the disputes are in relation to issues such as re-triggers and periods of loss but, ultimately, we anticipate that settlements will be reached in all cases.

Premises Cases

In December 2024, the Supreme Court refused permission to the insurers who wished to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the ‘At the Premises’ appeals, which had been handed down in September 2024.  This brought to an end all rights of appeal, meaning that the decision of the Court of Appeal is now binding in all ‘At the Premises’ claims.

While the Supreme Court’s decision on the permission request was awaited, we proactively contacted all other affected insurers to seek their engagement over issues of evidence and quantum with a view to narrowing the issues. Our aim is to move all affected cases closer to settlement without the need for further litigation, although how quickly this can occur will be largely down to the attitude of the insurers. We contacted all affected insurers and are receiving their responses, which are broadly in agreement with our proposals. As such, we have been submitting evidence to those insurers who have indicated that they are prepared to consider it, with a view to moving on to discussing settlement in the event that it is agreed that the evidential threshold required in order to trigger cover has been met. We are currently discussing this evidence with those insurers with a view to agreeing how these claims are to progress.

Public Emergency Cases

Barings are still pressing forward with numerous different categories of ‘Public Emergency’ type policies which are at varying stages of progression.

Current Legislation

A number of these cases have now settled with the remainder moving closer to settlement. All of the cohorts of claims are subject to a stay of the litigation to allow settlement of all claims to be achieved.

AA Clauses

We have made good progress with these claims over the quarter, with the four cohorts all reaching agreement to settle in various fashions. Two of the cohorts have agreements to pay up to the financial cap in the policy for the lockdown periods as interim payments, with the intention of discussing further triggers thereafter. One of the cohorts has agreement to indemnify and pay out up to the financial cap in the policy for all of the triggers, with the final cohort currently featuring in a quantum dispute. As such, our focus here is on quantifying losses and continuing to formulate our arguments over re-triggers with a view to entering into settlement negotiations.

Denial of Access Cases (Public Emergency)

These claims are taking a number of different routes. Two cohorts have now settled, with a further currently in settlement discussions. 

Denial of Access (Standard)

While the Court of Appeal decision on the ‘incident’ wording in the case of International Entertainment Holdings v Allianz was in favour of the insurers, the other claims that we have with similar wording are wider in their scope and so we are proceeding with the litigation in this area. Two additional cohorts are therefore still subject to indemnity disputes and are proceeding to preliminary issues trials. Those two cohorts proceeding have overlapping issues with another firm’s ongoing litigation, and we are currently discussing with them and the defendants the ability to collectively case manage all of these cases so as to streamline these matters and share the risk of costs.

Bomb Hoax Clause Cases

These claims are continuing to progress positively, with a number of settlements having been achieved on both cohorts of the claims with offers continuing to be received in respect of the unresolved claims. Our focus in these claims, aside from reviewing and advising on the offers received, is around financial evidence gathering for those claims where this remains outstanding with a view to presenting all claims to the insurers for consideration and prompt payment.

Quarterly Settlement Performance

During the period March to May 2025, we have agreed interim or final damages of more than £1m on behalf of 48 clients, with a number of other offers having been received from insurers which are being reviewed and discussed with clients.

As many of you are aware, undisclosed commission claims currently remain ‘stayed’ by the courts pending the outcome of the highly-anticipated Supreme Court appeal in the motor finance cases of Johnson v. Firstrand Bank Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1282. These cases, comprising three conjoined appeals, have attracted considerable media attention and are poised to significantly shape the legal landscape surrounding secret commissions.

In our February update, we mentioned that we were awaiting the decision of our appeal heard at Birmingham County Court on 17 January. We are pleased to confirm that the judgment was received on 25 April.

The outcome delivered a notable success, in that the appeal against the dismissal of the claim against Promontoria – who was the assignee of the loan – was successful. The previous costs order awarded in Promontoria’s favour was set aside and the claim under the Unfair Relationship provisions was remitted to the previous court for further determination.

However, we were disappointed that the appeal was dismissed against the original creditor, GE Money. Despite our strong view that the original unfairness in the debtor–creditor relationship was caused by GE Money’s actions or omissions, the court found that the claim was out of time, ruling that the six-year limitation period had expired, having begun when the loan was transferred to Promontoria.

We, together with leading counsel, respectfully disagree with this aspect of the decision. We maintain that the limitation period should commence against the original creditor from the redemption of the loan and not from the date of transfer. On this basis, we have now filed an application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal this decision. We remain optimistic that the strength of our legal arguments will lead to permission being granted.

A successful appeal would establish an important legal precedent, confirming that borrowers have the right to pursue claims against the original creditor, even after a loan has been transferred, and that the original creditor cannot escape liability simply by assigning the loan to another party.

We continue to see success in our PPI undisclosed commission claims, which are now being resolved more swiftly than in the past.

We appreciate your continued support and interest, and we look forward to providing a further update once the Court of Appeal has ruled on our application for permission to appeal.

Barings Law continues to represent clients who have received negligent advice regarding the transfer of their accrued pension benefits. We are pleased to announce that, with the assistance of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), we have observed an increase in settlements for claims pursued against ceding providers. We have successfully recovered compensation awards through cash settlements and, where that is not possible, secured reinstatements, putting multiple clients back into their original positions had they not transferred their pension benefits.

We remain committed to representing clients in their complex matters and achieving favourable resolutions.

We continue to represent hundreds of clients that have fallen victim to sophisticated scam operations resulting in significant financial losses.

This quarter, the Banking Claims department has seen a dramatic increase in upheld claims from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for numerous banks’ failure to implement appropriate fraud prevention measures to identify unusual spending habits, high-risk recipients and the hallmarks of potential scam operations. A notable successful claim related to funds recovered in the sum of approximately £83,000, plus 8% statutory interest.

Our dedicated team of legal experts will continue to work tirelessly to recover lost funds and provide much-needed support and assistance to those affected.

The Irresponsible Lending department is continuing to successfully represent clients who have fallen victim to irresponsible lending practices, resulting in significant financial distress.

We are pursuing a vast amount of irresponsible lending cases over numerous product types including credit cards, store cards, catalogue cards, overdraft facilities and unsecured personal loans.

We have continued to utilise the services of third parties such as the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to review and consider claims in which lenders have failed to fulfil their statutory obligations in relation to affordability and creditworthiness checks and have further seen an increase in upheld complaints from the FOS.

Our team is committed to thoroughly investigating each case to identify failings by lenders – and ensuring their accountability – when providing suitable credit facilities to consumers.

We work diligently to ensure our clients receive the compensation they are due, helping to restore their financial security.

One of the largest and most historic financial institutions, St James’s Place (SJP) has been criticised by the Financial Conduct Authority following a review of the services provided in consideration for ongoing advisory fees. SJP has been unable to demonstrate that annual reviews took place and/or failed to properly document these reviews. Consequently, SJP has confirmed that they have set aside £426 million for potential client refunds. This amount is intended to compensate customers who paid for annual reviews they never received.

We have submitted a batch of test cases, and a large proportion of these cases were upheld, with refund offers made in full and final settlement. We are currently in the process of filing further complaints on behalf of clients who retained the services of SJP and anticipate further successful outcomes.