Although the courts wind down a bit over the summer, two major rulings this July are worth noting. Between them, these cases demonstrate that success in litigation depends on the evidence, the legal arguments, and thorough preparation, not simply on whether you’re bringing or defending the claim. One case below was a win for the people bringing the claim. The other was a clear win for the company defending itself. As a law firm that acts for both sides of disputes, we have selected one of each.

Case One: Thousands of People Given the Green Light to Sue Johnson & Johnson Together

The short version: Over 2,000 people who believe they developed cancer from using Johnson’s Baby Powder have won the right to bring their claims together as a group, rather than each fighting alone.

More than 2,000 claimants – with another 5,000 people reportedly waiting to join – allege they developed a type of cancer called mesothelioma, or ovarian cancer, after using Johnson’s Baby Powder over the years. They allege the powder was contaminated with asbestos (a substance known to cause cancer), and that Johnson & Johnson continued to market it as safe despite knowing of those alleged risks. Johnson & Johnson denies the claims.

On 10 June 2026, the High Court agreed that these thousands of claims should be managed together under something called a Group Litigation Order (GLO). In plain terms, this means the court will deal with the issues common to everyone’s case in one go, rather than making each person start from scratch. That matters enormously for ordinary claimants – without it, most people simply could not afford, or survive long enough, to take on a company as large as Johnson & Johnson alone.

Lead claimant Janet Fuschillo, who has ovarian cancer, said she was relieved the court had recognised her situation and that of many others – while predicting Johnson & Johnson would fight the case “tooth and nail.” The judge acknowledged real urgency here, too: sadly, claimants are dying at a significant rate while the case continues.

It wasn’t a clean sweep for the claimants, though. The court refused to let them include one particular scientific argument in their case, because it was not clearly explained. And Johnson & Johnson won some of its own points too – including a requirement for claimants to provide detailed medical and product-use information up front, which will shape whose cases get heard first.

Why this matters if you are bringing a claim: Getting the right legal structure in place – like a GLO – can be just as important as the strength of the underlying facts. It is often the difference between a case being viable at all and not.

Case Two: High Court Rejects Claims Against Renault in Diesel Emissions Litigation

The short version: After a huge, years-long court battle, Renault has been completely cleared of allegations that it rigged its diesel cars to cheat emissions tests.

This case was part of the largest group legal action ever brought in the UK – over 1.6 million car owners are involved. It followed on from the “Dieselgate” scandal, where some manufacturers were found to have secretly programmed cars to behave differently during official emissions testing than they did on the road. Five major carmakers – Mercedes, Ford, Renault, Nissan and Peugeot/Citroen – were chosen as “lead” cases to be heard first, with the outcome expected to guide many of the other claims still in the pipeline.

On 10 July 2026, after a 13-week trial, the judge ruled that most of the technology in question – including everything in Renault’s vehicles – did not amount to illegal cheating. Renault was cleared entirely. The court did find against two other manufacturers on specific issues: a coolant-temperature setting used in some Mercedes-Benz vehicles and a fuel-injection strategy used in some Peugeot-Citroen vehicles. So the overall result was mixed for the industry as a whole, but a full win for Renault specifically.

Renault said the result was fully consistent with its long-held position that its vehicles always met the legal requirements. Interestingly, Renault also announced it intends to recover its legal costs – not from ordinary drivers, but from the large institutional investors and hedge funds who financed the claims against it in the hope of a payout.

Why this matters if you are defending a claim: Facing a huge, well-funded group claim can feel overwhelming, and the pressure to settle rather than fight can be intense. Renault’s result shows that a properly prepared defence – even one that takes years to run its course – can succeed outright, and that the costs of losing do not only fall on individual claimants; funders can be on the hook too. A further hearing is expected in October 2026 to deal with compensation for the manufacturers who lost.

The Takeaway

Two very different results, decided within weeks of each other – but both coming down to the same thing: how well a case is prepared and argued. At Griffin Law, we represent people bringing claims and businesses defending them, and seeing both sides up close is exactly what helps us prepare the strongest possible case for whichever side of the dispute you’re on.

Griffin Law is a dispute resolution firm comprising innovative, proactive, tenacious and commercially-minded lawyers. We pride ourselves on our close client relationships, which are uniquely enhanced by our transparent fee guarantee and a commitment to share the risks of litigation. For more details of our services please email justice@griffin.law or call 01732 52 59 23.

GRIFFIN LAW – TRANSPARENT FEES. TENACIOUS LAWYERS. TRUSTED PARTNERS.

Nothing in this document constitutes any form of legal advice upon which any person can place any form of reliance of any kind whatsoever. We expressly disclaim, and you hereby irrevocably agree to waive, all or any liability of any kind whatsoever, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, to you or any other person who may read or otherwise come to learn of anything covered or referred to in this document. In the event that you wish to take any action in connection with the subject matter of this document, you should obtain legal advice before doing so.