The growth of group litigation

In a globalised world, with rapid technological advancements and a changing environmental landscape, it is no surprise that new risks are emerging at a rapid rate. By their very nature, these risks are difficult to fully comprehend and accurately quantify. The extent of unknown variables and lack of concrete data points makes it near impossible to anticipate the extent of their impact, even with the existence of sophisticated risk modelling. In such circumstances, we are forced to turn to the analogue approach of the courts to steer our initial understanding.

In looking to the UK’s legal sphere, it is apparent that there is a growing presence of Group Litigation Orders (GLOs). GLOs, or class actions as they are more commonly known, enables claimants with common issues of fact or law to bring coordinated legal action against one or more defendants. Traditionally, GLOs have been limited in the UK in comparison to other jurisdictions. However, there has been an uptick in recent years driven by an increased public awareness of rights, lower barriers to entry via third-party litigation funding, as well as the judiciary showing more openness to collective redress models.

There are a number of recent high-profile GLO applications that show the tide is turning. In October 2025, a GLO order was applied for on behalf of around 3,000 people against Johnson & Johnson for its manufacturing of talcum powder products in the UK. That same month, a GLO order was applied for on behalf of 4,000 claimants for pollution to the Rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. If successful, it would be the largest ever environmental pollution claim on three counts – the size of the claimant group, the scale of the geographical area involved, and the amount of damages claimed. The scope and volume of these claims show the direction of travel – larger claims, wider media coverage and more complex litigation.

As well as being an example of the growth of GLOs, the Three Rivers claim also points to the rise of environmental contamination litigation. Broadly speaking, these types of claims centre on damages from pollution caused by a particular contaminant. One category of contaminants garnering significant attention is PFAS. PFAS is the name given to a group of manufactured chemicals that are widely used in industrial settings and everyday products.

These chemicals do not naturally breakdown in the environment, hence the colloquialism ‘forever chemicals’. The UK Environment Agency detected PFAS in 96% of surface water samples in the UK, illustrating the sheer level of contamination. Unlike asbestos, there is currently no signature disease associated with PFAS, however there have been probable links to diseases like testicular cancer, fertility issues, thyroid disease and birth defects.

The first UK PFAS claim was brought on behalf of residents of the town Bentham, referred to in media as ‘the most polluted town’ against Angus Fire Ltd, a company that manufactures fire-fighting foam containing PFAS. It was brought for both environmental contamination as well as property damage. In October of this year, the claim was settled for an undisclosed amount and without an admission of liability. If it continued to trial, this would have been the first bellwether PFAS case in the UK jurisdiction.

Looking beyond UK borders, the courts of many countries are similarly dealing with this emerging risk. In the United States, there has been over $18 billion in known PFAS-related settlements to date. In Australia, which isn’t considered to be as claimant-friendly as the US, the Federal Court in 2023 approved a $132.7 (AUD) million settlement to be paid by the Federal Government to landowners whose properties were contaminated by PFAS from a nearby air force base. Closer to home, there has been PFAS-related litigation in six separate European countries, the most recent example occurred in July 2025, when an Italian court ordered imprisonment for 11 former executives of chemical company Miteni for PFAS pollution of water and soil in an area of Northern Italy. Whilst the Bentham claim is the first PFAS case brought in the UK, analysis of global litigation trends shows it is unlikely to be the last.

The growing presence of GLOs and the emergence of environmental contamination litigation are just two examples of trends within the UK legal system with significant implications for the insurance industry. Ensuring the industry adequately responds to these emerging issues is contingent on its ability to keep abreast of developments in judicial thinking – both domestically and in relevant international jurisdictions.