Claim Spotlight: Business Energy

Introduction

Business energy claims have become an increasingly regular topic of discussion within the high-volume claims market. While they may not always attract the same attention as some consumer-facing redress schemes, they represent a more established and increasingly structured area of dispute that can be well suited to litigation funding when approached with discipline. 

This Claim Spotlight looks at business energy claims from a funding perspective. It explores how the claim area developed, how these claims typically behave at volume, and what makes them attractive or challenging for funders.  

Market Development and Current Outlook

Business energy claims arise from historic practices within the non-domestic energy sector, particularly around contract renewals, pricing structures, commissions and broker arrangements. Over time, disputes have focused on issues such as undisclosed commissions, mis-selling, automatic rollovers and unclear contractual terms, often impacting SMEs with limited internal resources to challenge suppliers. 

Unlike consumer energy disputes, these claims sit firmly within a business-to-business context. As a result, this removes certain regulatory and vulnerability considerations, placing greater emphasis on documentary evidence. Claim progression often depends on historic contracts, billing data, broker correspondence and supplier conduct over extended periods. 

Recent legal developments, including the Supreme Court’s recent Johnson decision, have renewed interest in how commission disclosure and broker conduct may be assessed in a commercial context. While the decision has introduced potential new lines of argument, its application to business energy claims remains largely untested and continues to develop through early-stage litigation activity. 

The Supreme Court’s handling of Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd has further sparked attention to this area. The appeal was allowed in light of last year’s Johnson ruling, prompting discussion around whether distinctions between “half secret” and “fully secret” commissions should be disregarded and whether brokers may, in certain circumstances, be found to owe duties of trust. While this has encouraged some firms to re-examine potential business energy claims, significant evidential hurdles remain, particularly around establishing fiduciary relationships and supplier knowledge. As such, any perceived expansion of liability must still be assessed cautiously and on a case-specific basis. 

From a market perspective, business energy claims are relatively mature. Defendants are typically repeat energy suppliers and brokers, so procedural behaviours are more predictable, and legal arguments are well defined. While competitive, the space is no longer speculative, although certain emerging theories of liability are still working their way through the courts.

What Works Well for Funding

At scale, business energy claims can align well with volume litigation funding models where operational discipline and data integrity are strong. 

Because claims are typically brought against a relatively small group of repeat energy suppliers and brokers, claimant law firms and CMCs that run these claims at scale can build a clear picture of how those defendants behave. Over time, this operational familiarity allows firms to anticipate response timelines, disclosure patterns, and settlement tendencies, supporting more accurate forecasting, resourcing, and cashflow planning. 

While individual claim values may be modest, aggregation at volume can generate meaningful returns when workflows are efficient and consistent. The absence of consumer vulnerability considerations can also simplify certain aspects of case handling, provided onboarding and eligibility checks are robust. From a funding perspective, this combination of repeatability, scalability and behavioural insight can be attractive – particularly where firms can evidence historic performance and consistent execution.  

Key Considerations for Funding Business Energy Claims

As with any high-volume claim type, the same characteristics that make business energy claims viable can also create challenges if not managed carefully. 

Data quality is a primary consideration 

Data quality is the most common pressure point. Missing contracts, incomplete billing histories or inconsistent broker documentation can materially delay progression and increase write-off risk. Where claims rely heavily on retrospective data reconstruction, timelines often extend beyond original assumptions. 

Operational consistency is equally important. 

Volume becomes inefficient chaos if processes lack standardisation. Variations in contract structures across suppliers and time periods can introduce complexity that erodes margins if not anticipated at the outset. 

Legal developments should be monitored closely 

There is also legal uncertainty to consider. While the Johnson case highlighted potential arguments around commission disclosure, its application to business energy claims is not yet settled. The extent to which courts will extend or distinguish those principles in a commercial energy context remains unclear. From a funding perspective, this introduces an additional layer of risk that needs to be reflected in underwriting assumptions, pricing and capital deployment decisions. 

Getting the Most Out of Business Energy Claims

The strongest performers in this area tend to demonstrate consistent operational discipline and utilise familiarity to structure predictable processing. 

Clear eligibility criteria and controlled intake processes reduce downstream attrition. Firms that invest early in standardised document requirements and validation checks are better positioned to maintain momentum throughout the lifecycle of a claim. 

Operational familiarity with key defendants is equally important. Embedding that insight into resourcing, case strategy and cashflow modelling allows for more realistic expectations and fewer surprises. 

From a funding perspective, transparency is critical. Accurate reporting on WIP, ageing, bottlenecks and historic outcomes enables constructive dialogue around structure, drawdown pacing and risk allocation. 

Ultimately, success in business energy claims is driven less by novelty and more by execution. 

Closing Thoughts

Business energy claims are not by any means a shortcut to easy returns, but they can form a dependable component of a diversified claims portfolio. For claimant firms with the right infrastructure and for funders focused on disciplined deployment rather than speculation, the area offers a commercially rational opportunity. 

As with most high-volume claim types, the difference between consistent performance and under-delivery lies in process, data quality and realistic assumptions.  

If your firm is running business energy claims at scale and would like to explore whether your portfolio may be suitable for litigation funding, we would welcome the conversation. 

To discuss your business energy claims and potential funding structures, please contact us at: info@fenchurch-legal.co.uk.

FAQs