A recent panel discussion at London International Disputes Week brought together practitioners and funders to explore the evolving landscape of fraud litigation. This followed Stewarts and Solomonic’s recent report, ‘Trends in Fraud Litigation 2026: A Litigation Funding Perspective’ .

The panel was hosted by Alex Jay (acting as chair) and Charlie Mercer from Stewarts in partnership with Edward Bird from Solomonic. They were joined by Lucas Arnold from Harbour, Charles Jeffery from Jeffery Capital and Erik Bomans from Deminor Litigation Funding. The discussion focused on emerging data trends in fraud litigation, the role of funding, the future trajectory of fraud disputes and the role that data can play.

The session opened with Charlie identifying three core observations from Solomonic’s data:

1. Most fundamentally, the volume of fraud claims has increased since 2014, rising from around 6% of all claims to a plateau of approximately 10–12% since 2020. This may be driven by an increase in fraud in society generally, but also the increasing popularity and refinement of fraud causes of action, such as Quincecare-type claims.
2. There has also been a striking shift over the last five years in where fraud claims are being litigated. In 2020, the higher-value courts (the Commercial Court, Business List and Financial List) had a combined share of 66%. As at 2025, this has reduced to 42%, with the Circuit Commercial Court and the general King’s Bench Division having the highest share at 43%. This indicates an increased proportion of lower-value claims.
3. Finally, banking and finance claims are consistently the leading subject matter of fraud claims. This is unsurprising given that financial institutions and financial transactions are inevitably drawn into fraud disputes in some way.

Edward noted that although fraud claims are three times more likely to proceed to trial than other disputes, the majority still resolve pre‑trial. He emphasised Solomonic’s role in producing costs data and in tracking party behaviour, both of which can assist funders to assess a potential case’s probability of success at trial.

The panel then turned to the broader relationship between funding and fraud litigation.

Lucas, Charles and Erik agreed that fraud disputes occupied a significant portion of their respective portfolios, with Harbour’s Lucas estimating that such cases account for between 15 to 20% of funded matters. The panel also stated that such disputes often sit at the higher end of the claims in their portfolio in terms of claim value and budget.

A paramount consideration highlighted by the panel was the importance of recoverability, given that an otherwise meritorious claim is of limited value if the claimant is ultimately unable to successfully enforce a judgment. The challenges of enforcement can mean that funders may not receive a return on their investment until years after the judgment. This focus on recoverability also means that for funders, banks and professional services firms are appealing targets as the former are regulated entities (many with a presence in many jurisdictions) and the latter often have professional indemnity insurance.

The panel also made some observations on the negative aspects of fraud cases, including that they can lend themselves to higher costs. Further, fraud cases often take time to get to trial, in part due to their complexity but also due to the strategies deployed by the defendants.

Finally, the panel identified several broader trends that are shaping the market. There is a focus on cross-border enforcement (with AI being deployed to trace assets), and England remains a preferred forum due to the quality of its judiciary, procedural efficiency and enforcement methods. At the same time, funding structures are evolving, with greater use of percentage-based returns and hybrid contingency arrangements to align risk among funders, lawyers and insurers.