Click the title for Dark mode
Recent UK Civil Litigation Cases
(2024-2025)
Post Office Horizon IT Scandal: Over £660 Million Compensation Paid to Date
The Post Office Horizon IT scandal continues to unfold as one of the UK's greatest miscarriages of justice. Between 1999 and 2015, over 900 sub-postmasters were wrongfully convicted of theft, fraud, and false accounting based on faulty Horizon accounting software developed by Fujitsu. The system contained "bugs, errors and defects" that created false shortfalls in branch accounts. In 2019, following a High Court group litigation brought by 555 sub-postmasters led by Alan Bates, the Post Office agreed to settle for £58 million, though claimants received only £12 million after legal costs. By January 2025, approximately £663 million has been paid to over 3,800 claimants across four compensation schemes. The government has set aside £1.8 billion for compensation costs. The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 was passed to overturn convictions. Those with overturned convictions can take a fixed offer of £600,000 for swift redress. As of February 2024, 100 convictions had been overturned. The scandal has led to 13 suicides, with victims losing homes, livelihoods, and suffering family breakdowns.
Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-compensation-data-for-2024
Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd: Court of Appeal Lowers Bar for Data Breach Claims
The Court of Appeal ruled in October 2024 that claimants can pursue data breach compensation even where data has not been disclosed to or accessed by third parties, significantly lowering the bar for such claims. The case involved over 400 police officers of Sussex Police whose pension statements containing personal information (names, dates of birth, National Insurance numbers, salary and pension details) were sent to incorrect addresses by their pension administrator Equiniti. The High Court had initially struck out all but 14 claims, requiring proof that statements were opened and read by third parties. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this, ruling that processing errors alone constitute unlawful "processing" under GDPR, exposing organizations to liability. The Court found there is no minimum threshold of "seriousness" for bringing data protection claims and that compensation can be recovered for objectively well-founded fears of consequences, even without proven third-party access. The case has been remitted back to the High Court for individual assessment. This landmark decision is expected to lead to more data breach litigation across the UK.
Link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/383.html
Ziyavudin Magomedov v TPG and Others: High Court Dismisses $14 Billion Lawsuit
The High Court dismissed a $14 billion (£11 billion) lawsuit filed by imprisoned Russian tycoon Ziyavudin Magomedov against private equity firm TPG and Russian state companies Rosatom and Transneft in January 2025. Magomedov, who is serving a 19-year sentence in Russia for embezzlement and organized crime, alleged a Kremlin-backed conspiracy to seize his assets, including stakes in major Russian transport businesses FESCO and the Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port, below market value while he was in prison. Following a three-week hearing, Mr Justice Bright ruled there was no serious issue to be tried, no jurisdictional basis for the claims, and that England & Wales was not the appropriate forum for the dispute. The court found no evidence to support allegations that TPG or Transneft had participated in any conspiracy. Any claims against Rosatom should be addressed in Cyprus, the judge suggested. Magomedov plans to appeal the decision, arguing that the seizure of his assets was orchestrated as part of political persecution.
Link: https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/tpg-throws-out-jailed-russian-tycoons-14bn-uk-lawsuit-557ac251
Alcimos v Citigroup: €59 Million Lawsuit Over Abandoned IPO
UK-based investment firm Alcimos has filed a €59 million lawsuit against Citigroup in the High Court, alleging the bank provided misleading advice regarding a potential IPO aimed at raising capital for investment in the Greek property market. Alcimos claims that Citigroup gave inaccurate information about the level of investor interest, which led the firm to proceed with preparations for the listing. When the IPO was eventually abandoned, Alcimos alleges it suffered significant financial losses including wasted preparation costs and lost investment opportunities. Citigroup denies the allegations, asserting that the IPO was abandoned due to genuinely insufficient investor appetite and deteriorating market conditions that were beyond its control. The bank argues it provided accurate assessments based on market soundings conducted at the time. The case highlights the risks involved in IPO preparations and the responsibilities of financial advisors. The litigation is ongoing, with both parties preparing extensive evidence regarding market conditions and investor communications during the relevant period.
Link: https://www.ft.com/content/59d91633-eac1-4b75-bfe2-2f1024386edc
Pacini & Anor v Dow Jones & Company Inc: High Court Applies Defamation Principles to Data Protection Claim
In a novel 2024 High Court case, two former investment bankers brought data protection claims against Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, alleging that articles published in 2017 and 2018 contained inaccurate personal data about their alleged involvement in a conspiracy to defraud a Chinese billionaire. The case broke new ground by applying principles traditionally associated with defamation law—including the "single meaning rule" and "repetition rule"—to a standalone data protection claim for the first time. The defendants unsuccessfully argued the claim should be struck out as a disguised defamation action intended to circumvent the shorter limitation period for defamation. The court was asked to determine preliminary issues about the meaning of personal data in the articles and whether any such data constituted "criminal offence data" under the UK GDPR. The judge applied defamation-style interpretation methods, considering each article as a whole and in context, demonstrating increasing convergence between data protection and defamation law where media publication is concerned. This case signals potential expansion of data protection litigation into reputational damage territory.
Link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2714.html
Mariana Dam Disaster: £36 Billion Group Action Proceeds
More than 700,000 claimants are pursuing £36 billion in damages against BHP and Vale in what is likely the largest group action ever in English courts. The case concerns the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Brazil's Mariana region, which killed 19 people and caused catastrophic environmental damage when 43 million cubic meters of mining waste flooded the Rio Doce river system. The 11-week High Court trial scheduled for October 2024 covered some of the UK legal market's most prominent issues: environmental litigation, group actions, multinationals' responsibilities for foreign subsidiaries, and English court jurisdiction. The claimants, represented by multiple law firms including Pogust Goodhead, argue that BHP (listed in London) and Vale bear responsibility for the disaster caused by their jointly-owned Samarco mining operation. The defendants contest English jurisdiction and liability. The case has garnered international attention as a potential landmark for corporate accountability in environmental disasters. A judgment is expected in 2025, which could set significant precedents for future transnational environmental litigation.
Link: https://www.solomonic.co.uk/news-insights/solomonic-most-tracked-high-court-cases-of-2024
Dieselgate Litigation: Over One Million Claimants Against Car Manufacturers
The "Dieselgate" class action involving over one million claimants continues against major car manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Ford, Nissan, and Renault. The High Court has granted 13 group litigation orders (GLOs) to manage the cases, which allege diesel vehicles were mis-sold with "prohibited defeat devices" (PDDs) that manipulated emissions tests to conceal harmful nitrogen oxide levels. Claimants argue they paid premium prices for vehicles marketed as "clean diesel" that were actually polluting far beyond legal limits. A 10-week technical trial is scheduled for 2025 to determine key issues including whether the devices were actually prohibited, whether manufacturers acted knowingly, and the extent of consumer loss. Multiple law firms represent claimants including Leigh Day, Pogust Goodhead, Keller Lenkner, Milberg, Slater & Gordon, and Hausfeld. Defendants are represented by Herbert Smith Freehills (Mercedes-Benz), Freshfields (Volkswagen), McGuireWoods (Ford), and Hogan Lovells (Nissan). The potential compensation could reach billions of pounds if claimants succeed.
Link: https://www.solomonic.co.uk/news-insights/solomonic-most-tracked-high-court-cases-of-2024
Building Safety/Cladding Litigation: Billions at Stake in Defective Building Claims
Multiple High Court cases are proceeding regarding defective and dangerous cladding on residential buildings following the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster. Leaseholders, who face bills of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to remediate dangerous cladding they did not install, are bringing claims against developers, construction companies, cladding manufacturers, and certifiers. The government has established the Building Safety Fund, but it does not cover all affected buildings. Developers have committed £2 billion to repairs on buildings of 11 meters and above that they developed or refurbished over the past 30 years, but disputes continue over responsibility and funding. The Court of Appeal is considering several building safety cases under the Building Safety Act 2022, including whether remediation contribution orders can be made retrospectively for costs incurred before June 2022. MPs have drawn parallels between the building safety crisis and the Post Office scandal, noting how ordinary leaseholders are being financially devastated while large corporations seek to avoid responsibility. The litigation continues to develop as the scope of the cladding crisis becomes clearer.
Link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases (multiple building safety cases listed)
Thames Water Debt Crisis: High Court Hearings on Avoiding Nationalisation
Thames Water, the UK's largest water utility serving 16 million customers, appeared in High Court hearings in November 2024 seeking an extension to its debt terms to avoid nationalisation in 2025. The company faces £18 billion in debt and higher interest payments, risking running out of cash by May 2025 unless investors provide equity. Thames Water has over £1 billion in loans needing renegotiation by December 2024 and has appointed Rothschild & Co to raise equity, though investor interest has been minimal. The company's future also hinges on a deal with regulator Ofwat regarding customer bill increases, expected by the end of December. Creditors owed £9 billion are preparing contingency plans for potential insolvency. Thames Water is already under special measures with an independent monitor being appointed. It faces potential fines and legal consequences for past misconduct including sewage dumping. The High Court proceedings examine whether proposed debt extensions are in creditors' interests and whether nationalisation can be avoided. This case has significant implications for UK water infrastructure and the privatized utility sector.
Link: https://www.ft.com/content/594e2e4b-caa1-4b7c-9807-af808af2c80e
Greenpeace UK & Uplift v UK Government: Legal Challenge to North Sea Oil Projects
Environmental groups Greenpeace UK and Uplift were granted permission by Scotland's highest civil court to challenge the UK government's approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw North Sea oil and gas projects. Hearings took place in November 2024 at the Scottish Court of Session. The groups argue that the government failed to adequately consider emissions from burning the fossil fuels that would be extracted—the "downstream emissions"—when approving the projects, making the approval process unlawful under environmental law. Greenpeace claims that Rosebank alone would release more CO2 over its lifetime than the annual emissions of 28 low-income countries combined. The UK government and operators Shell (Jackdaw) and Equinor (Rosebank) defend the projects as vital for UK energy security and economic growth. The companies argue that oil and gas will be needed for decades during the transition to renewable energy. If successful, this legal challenge could force the government to reassess its environmental impact evaluations and set significant precedents for future oil and gas projects. A judgment is expected in early 2025.
Link: https://www.ft.com/content/92f89b2a-f71a-4307-bc6c-157c3feb6dc2
Recent UK Employment Tribunal Cases
(2024 -2025)
Mrs Rachel Wright-Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Record-Breaking £4.6 Million Disability Discrimination Award
Mrs Rachel Wright-Turner was awarded £4.6 million in one of the largest employment tribunal awards ever made in the UK. Wright-Turner, who worked as Director of Public Services Reform, suffered from ADHD and PTSD following her work supporting Grenfell Tower fire victims. The Council extended her probationary period while she was on sick leave without consultation, then dismissed her without explanation or opportunity to appeal. The tribunal found the Council had discriminated against her, harassed her, and senior officers including the Chief Executive had deliberately misled the tribunal by backdating documents. The award included loss of earnings, pension losses, injury to feelings, psychiatric injury, aggravated damages, exemplary damages of £15,000, and £271,000 for non-compliance with ACAS codes.
Mrs Katrina Hibbert v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: £1.1 Million Award for Side-Hustle Discrimination
Katrina Hibbert, a safeguarding sergeant with Thames Valley Police, was awarded £1,176,368 after being constructively dismissed for disability discrimination. Hibbert suffered from complex PTSD, anxiety, and depression due to the emotionally intense nature of her work with child exploitation victims. Following occupational health advice, she set up a party tent business as a therapeutic outlet with the force's approval. When she was signed off sick with stress in 2019, Thames Valley Police withdrew her business permission without medical consultation, claiming it was "unsuitable to be running an active business whilst unable to fulfil obligations to your employer." The force then launched gross misconduct proceedings against her. The tribunal found that withdrawing the permission removed a crucial reasonable adjustment and constituted disability discrimination, ultimately forcing her resignation.
Rob Ogden v Booker Ltd: Unfair Dismissal in "Toxic" Workplace Culture
Rob Ogden, a delivery driver who had worked for Booker since 2016, was dismissed for gross misconduct after using offensive language towards a female colleague during a conversation about weight loss. Ogden admitted calling the colleague a "fing m" and making derogatory comments. However, the Manchester Employment Tribunal found the dismissal unfair, describing the workplace as having a "toxic" and "lawless" culture with no real enforcement of dignity at work standards by managers. The tribunal noted that widespread inappropriate "banter" and pranks were tolerated, and that Ogden had never been pulled up on such behavior before, giving him a false sense of security. The tribunal concluded that while Ogden's language was offensive, a written warning would have been more appropriate given the context of the dysfunctional workplace culture where managers were "complicit in that dysfunction."
Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-r-ogden-v-booker-ltd-2400482-slash-2024
Nadine Hanson v Interaction Recruitment Specialists Ltd: Constructive Dismissal After Manager Ignored Greetings
Nadine Hanson won her unfair dismissal claim after her new managing director, Andrew Gilchrist, ignored her greetings on three occasions. Hanson, who had worked for the company for 20 years, arrived late after a medical appointment in September 2023 and attempted to greet Gilchrist three times without response. When she tried to show him proof of her appointment, he pushed her phone aside and suggested she leave. Within an hour, he emailed her direct reports offering them pay rises without consulting her. The Leeds Employment Tribunal ruled that while ignoring greetings alone may not constitute a fundamental breach, it contributed significantly to breaching the implied term of trust and confidence. Judge Sarah Davies found Gilchrist's evidence "unconvincing" and noted he had quickly formed negative opinions about Hanson without proper discussion about her work. Hanson resigned two weeks later due to anxiety, sleepless nights, and feeling humiliated and undervalued.
Meliesha Jones v Vale Curtains and Blinds: Admin Worker Unfairly Dismissed After Accidental Customer Email
Meliesha Jones, an administrator at Vale Curtains and Blinds, was unfairly dismissed after accidentally sending an email to a customer rather than forwarding it to a colleague. Jones received an email from a customer she found difficult and wrote to a colleague: "Can you change this… he's a twat so it doesn't matter if you can't." She accidentally clicked 'reply' instead of 'forward,' sending it directly to the customer. Upon realizing her mistake, Jones immediately apologized and offered to pay the customer £500 from her own money as a goodwill gesture. When the customer's wife complained and threatened to go to the press and post online, Jones was dismissed. The tribunal found her dismissal unfair, ruling that the investigation was inadequate and the decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses, particularly given her clean disciplinary record and immediate remorse.
Professor Jo Phoenix v The Open University: £ Undisclosed Settlement for Gender Critical Beliefs Discrimination
Professor Jo Phoenix, a criminology professor at the Open University, won her discrimination claim after being harassed for her gender critical beliefs. Phoenix co-founded the Gender Critical Research Network, an academic research group, which led to a sustained campaign against her by colleagues. She was compared by her Deputy Head of Department to "the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table" and subjected to an online open letter that encouraged a "pile-on" from others. The tribunal found Phoenix had been directly discriminated against and harassed, and that the University failed to protect her from attacks by colleagues for fear of being seen to support gender critical beliefs. The University delayed dealing with her grievance and terminated the process after she resigned, which constituted post-employment victimisation. Phoenix was awarded compensation (amount undisclosed but settled), and the tribunal ruled her constructive dismissal was both unfair and discriminatory.
Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre: £69,000 for Gender Critical Beliefs Discrimination
Roz Adams, a counsellor at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, was awarded £69,000 after being constructively dismissed due to her gender critical beliefs. Adams believed that survivors of male sexual violence should be able to choose whether to engage with male or female counsellors. She questioned an email about a colleague that described them using they/them pronouns, asking for clarity on how to respond if service users asked if the colleague was male. This led to a deeply flawed disciplinary investigation where senior management believed her views were "inherently hateful." The tribunal's judgment was highly critical, calling the description of Adams' email as "humiliating and transphobic" as "nonsense" and stating the colleague's reaction had been "completely overblown." The tribunal ruled the investigation should never have been launched and was "clearly motivated by a strong belief that the claimant's views were inherently hateful." The disciplinary process was described as "completely spurious and mishandled."
Rachel Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England: £58,000 for Gender Critical Beliefs Harassment
Rachel Meade, a social worker, was awarded over £58,000 including aggravated and exemplary damages after being harassed for her gender critical beliefs expressed on her private Facebook profile. A colleague complained to Social Work England (SWE) that Meade's posts were transphobic, leading to a fitness to practice investigation. Meade was told to either accept a one-year warning or face a hearing. Under pressure and fearing job loss, she accepted despite her immediate managers having no concerns about her practice. Westminster City Council then suspended her on gross misconduct charges, with the disciplinary investigation taking a year to complete and resulting in a final written warning. The tribunal found none of the Facebook posts were transphobic but were legitimate manifestations of Meade's protected belief. The tribunal ruled that both the Council and SWE had impeded her right to freedom of expression and harassed her through prolonged and unjustified processes.
Mr Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd: £42,000 for Unfair Dismissal Over Workplace Pranks
Train driver Mr Richardson was awarded £42,000 for unfair and wrongful dismissal after being sacked for placing a tarantula exoskeleton and later a snakeskin in a colleague's pigeonhole as workplace pranks. Richardson intended the pranks to elicit harmless surprise and lighthearted reactions. However, the company dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that while Richardson's actions were "childish," they did not warrant termination. The judge ruled that the dismissal for what was intended as harmless workplace humor was disproportionate, particularly given there was no evidence of malicious intent or previous similar conduct. The tribunal emphasized that the sanction of dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses available to the employer for such behavior.
Dr Nigel MacLennan v The British Psychological Society: Landmark Whistleblowing Protection for Trustees
Dr Nigel MacLennan, President-Elect and trustee of the British Psychological Society (BPS), brought a whistleblowing claim after being expelled from his membership in May 2021. MacLennan believed the expulsion was retaliatory for reporting concerns about the organization. Initially, the Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim, ruling that unpaid charity trustees did not qualify for whistleblowing protection under UK law. However, in October 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this decision in a landmark ruling. The EAT argued that trustees, because of their significant responsibilities, should be considered to have "occupational status" and therefore qualify for whistleblowing protection. This decision potentially extends legal protections to over one million trustees across the UK, marking a significant development in employment law and governance for the charitable sector.
Link: Available on EAT and tribunal websites
Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW: Supreme Court Blocks "Fire and Rehire" Strategy
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of USDAW (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers), preventing Tesco from dismissing workers as part of a "fire and rehire" strategy designed to remove employees' rights to retained pay. The case stemmed from a dispute over Tesco employees who had been promised retained pay as part of their contracts in exchange for staying with the business during a challenging period. Tesco sought to terminate these contracts to strip employees of this benefit, arguing it had served its purpose. The Supreme Court found that the right to retained pay was a permanent contractual entitlement and could not be removed through dismissal and re-engagement without breaching the agreement. The Court reinstated an injunction preventing Tesco from dismissing the employees, emphasizing that contractual terms cannot be unilaterally altered simply to remove benefits, setting an important precedent against fire and rehire practices.
Link: Supreme Court judgment available on BAILII
Tribunal Cases
Courtroom News
"Editor's note: This database is maintained as a public resource for understanding UK employment and civil litigation precedents. Cases are selected based on legal significance and public interest."
Contact
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay informed with global news updates on our main site
www.worldpressfreedom.com
© 2012 - 2025 WPF News
Michael Bosworth, Founder,
CEO & Chief Content Officer