Keeping London’s disputes crown: Challenges and opportunities ahead

London remains a leading global center for commercial disputes due to the enduring appeal of English law and the Commercial Court’s reputation for expertise and predictability. But with new international courts gaining momentum and litigant priorities shifting, London must actively evolve to stay competitive.

In Burford’s recent webcast, “Still the standard? How London can keep its disputes crown,” we examined trends reshaping the disputes landscape and what they mean for London’s future. The discussion featured insights from Simon Pugh (Partner, Portland Communications), Natalie Winwood (Senior Director of Group Litigation at a major Dubai bank) and Lindsay Bickerton (Partner, Clifford Chance). Below, we summarize the panel’s views on where London continues to excel, where pressures are emerging and what will matter most to maintain its global edge.

Portland’s most recent annual Commercial Courts Report, which analyses all judgments handed down by the London Commercial Courts between April 2024 and March 2025, highlights that the Commercial Court remains busy, diverse and internationally relevant, even as litigant profiles fluctuate year to year.

Key statistics from the report include:

• 257 judgments between April 2024 and March 2025, reflecting a plateau at c.250 per year and operation at or near capacity
• 1,368 litigants recorded in 2025, a 12% increase from the previous year despite stable judgment volume
• 93 nationalities represented, the highest ever recorded
• EU27 participation decreased by 7.8% and rest-of-world participation increased by 4.8% to a record 45.5%, reflecting a shift in international usage within non-UK litigants

London’s standing continues to evolve, driven by increased litigant engagement and a broader geographic profile of court users. Meanwhile, the report demonstrates that the importance of the Commercial Court remains widely recognized: 78% of the UK public believe that English courts significantly influence the country’s global reputation, and strong media coverage of judgments continues to strengthen London’s visibility and international standing.

Despite early uncertainty, Brexit has not meaningfully reduced EU usage of the English Commercial Court. Market participants continue to prioritize the predictability and contractual certainty that English law provides. In fact, Portland’s data confirmed that Brexit did not drive a structural decline in EU27 litigant participation, despite year-to-year fluctuations.

Lindsay Bickerton confirmed there had not been a significant client shift away from English jurisdiction clauses post-Brexit. The UK’s 2025 accession to the Hague Convention on Judgment Recognition restored streamlined cross-EU enforceability, removing any earlier concerns about exclusive vs. non-exclusive jurisdiction clause selection. For financial institutions in particular, certainty continues to be prioritized over forum politics, favoring English courts for interpretation of widely used English-law financial documentation.

London’s core strengths continue to draw global litigants, even as competing courts seek to emulate its model.

Panelists noted the following as key drivers of London’s continued popularity:

• Centuries of English law precedent, offering unmatched commercial certainty
• Highly specialized judiciary, with Commercial Court judges drawn from top commercial barristers and solicitors
• Strong supporting ecosystem: world-class law firms, the Bar, funders, insurers and asset-recovery specialists
• Robust interim relief tools—such as worldwide freezing orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders and search orders—available quickly and effectively
• Global enforceability reputation, making English judgments valuable anchors in cross-border disputes

These system-wide advantages remain difficult for newer jurisdictions to replicate.

One of the strongest long-term trends according to Portland’s analysis is the surge in UAE litigants, who now represent the second most common nationality in the English Commercial Court, second only to UK nationals. This rise perhaps reflects the UAE’s evolution into a global wealth and investment hub, generating a greater volume of outbound, cross-border disputes. The development of the DIFC and ADGM courts has also familiarized regional businesses with English law frameworks, increasing their comfort with English law litigation more generally. At the same time, high net worth individuals in the UAE have become more sophisticated and more willing to litigate in London, drawn by the neutrality and predictability of the English courts. As a result, UAE parties are increasingly turning to London not only for legal certainty but also for the strategic advantages it offers in multi-jurisdictional enforcement.

London now faces increasing competition from a new generation of international commercial courts. The rise of English law-governed courts in jurisdictions such as Singapore, Dubai and Abu Dhabi—which offer English-language proceedings, experienced common law judges and more permissive regimes for foreign lawyers to appear as advocates—may help explain shifts in the litigant data. Simon Pugh pointed to Singapore’s decline in participation over time, which may reflect the success of its own commercial courts, while the continued rise of UAE litigants suggests a segmentation of disputes rather than a wholesale shift away from London.

While the panel noted that many DIFC and ADGM cases remain regionally focused, these courts are rapidly improving and becoming more attractive to sophisticated litigants. Additionally, although litigation costs in the DIFC and ADGM are still broadly comparable to England, panelists highlighted that the UAE onshore courts' minimal adverse costs exposure can also influence price-sensitive litigants when choosing forum.

As these alternative courts continue to mature, they offer credible options for certain disputes, increasing competitive pressure on London to maintain the efficiency and judicial excellence that underpin its global relevance.

Reciprocity and enforceability remain central to parties’ choice of forum. Recent developments have, for example, significantly strengthened the enforcement relationship between London and the UAE. Panelists noted that UAE courts have issued clear circulars signaling their willingness to enforce English judgments where appropriate, while UK courts have likewise recognized UAE judgments, beginning with Lenkor and continuing in subsequent rulings. This growing mutual recognition gives UAE-based claimants greater confidence that an English judgment can be converted into realizable assets locally. It also supports a strategic approach in which parties obtain an English judgment first and then enforce in the UAE or other jurisdictions as needed. This predictability of enforcement continues to be one of London’s most competitive advantages in the global disputes landscape.

The rapid growth of AI is reshaping expectations across the disputes landscape, and the panel highlighted its increasingly important implications for the courts. Public confidence in AI remains highest for administrative tasks and lowest for those requiring judicial reasoning, while legal professionals are far more likely than the wider public to view AI as enhancing fairness—revealing a notable perception gap. The English courts, however, have a strong track record of adopting new technology, having embraced predictive coding and Technology Assisted Review early. Generative AI is now accelerating this shift, particularly in disclosure, where it is already reducing time and cost for litigation teams. Panelists expect the Commercial Court to support the careful, supervised use of such tools, recognizing AI’s potential to make UK litigation more efficient, more affordable and more internationally competitive when deployed responsibly.

Conclusion

London’s position in global dispute resolution remains strong, but the landscape is shifting. Sustaining that position will require continued focus on efficiency, predictability and responsiveness to international users. With thoughtful adaptation, London can continue to serve as the leading forum for complex commercial disputes.

You can view the full webcast and transcript here.

Geoff Nicholas is a Managing Director providing strategic input and advice in relation to the assessment, underwriting and management of legal risk as part of Burford’s core legal finance business. Prior to joining Burford, Geoff was a partner at Freshfields for almost 30 years advising on large, complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes.

Hannah Howlett is a Senior Vice President with responsibility for assessing and underwriting legal risk as part of Burford’s EMEA investment team, with a focus on asset recovery.