Representatives in the group actions over the so-called ‘Dieselgate’ scandal have told the court in a case management hearing that the litigation is valued at ‘billions of pounds’. Four judges in a full court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice were told on Friday that there are 1.25m claims and 1,500 defendants in the case.  

The ‘juggernaut’ class actions involve claims that car buyers were allegedly misled on the levels of dangerous emissions produced by diesel vehicles.

Group litigation orders have already been granted in the claims involving Mercedes and BMW vehicles. More GLO applications are expected.

Actions are being pursued against Mercedes, BMW and Mini, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Renault and other vehicle manufacturers that have been accused of malpractice in relation to the alleged installation of ‘defeat devices’ in vehicles first registered between 2009 and 2020.

For the claimants, Oliver Campbell KC said: ‘There are 18 claimant firms with clients bringing claims, according to estimates in the joint note, estimated at 1,250,000 claims and of those 360,000 are against Mercedes.

‘Claims are brought against 16 manufacturer defendants…according to defendants there are approximately 1,500 defendants if one includes dealerships and in some cases the dealership and finance companies are separately represented.’

Mercedes car

360,000 claims are against Mercedes

Source: Alamy

He said Mercedes should be the ‘lead case’ given ‘it has, by some distance, the most claimants’ and there had been ‘significant progress already by three disclosure orders’.

Campbell added: ‘Mercedes’ litigation covers all of the legal issues that arise in the other cases. The other point we make in relation to this is that the Mercedes case involves a wide range of defeat devices.’

The defendants, who sought details of the claimants’ funding and details of any ATE [after the event] policy, instead submitted that a trial on the legal issues should be heard first and Mercedes should not be a lead case.

For the defendants, but representing only some of the manufacturers, Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC described the litigation as ‘mammoth’ and on ‘an unprecedented scale’. She added: ‘The costs involved in litigating those claims will be astronomical.’

Arguing against Mercedes being used as a sample case, Mulcahy told the court that issues ‘may not arise in exactly the same way in every case’ adding that ‘there are issues that are pan-GLO issues’.

She said the Mercedes trial ‘would not avoid the need for other trials by other defendants. Mercedes cannot bind other parties in the way that is pointed at but otherwise unexplained in the claimant’s submissions. It needs to be remembered that on the claimants’ case, they are claiming sums that are in the collective sums in the billions.

‘The concern is even more acute where in circumstances the claimant’s ability to fund or meet adverse costs order is far from clear. By contrast to all of this, our proposal of common issues to be determined is more efficient and highly cost effective.’

A March 2024 date, initially listed to hear the Mercedes claim, will now be extended so that further case management hearing submissions can also be heard.

Presiding at the hearing, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘The litigation is unprecedented, cases will involve legal fact and technical issues which will, at one extreme, overlap to a point of being identical and on another, be unique to the particulars of claim and defendants. We are acutely aware professional costs involved are enormous and without active case management, wholly disproportionate…[in comparison to] the sums, if any, are ultimately recoverable.

‘We are all extremely grateful to the parties and their representatives for the way in which the hearing has been approached and conducted before us.’

The judges concluded that the March hearing, which will be extended to five days, will see the court determine the scope of the hearings currently timetabled and should include all parties as well as two additional lead GLOs as agreed and/or determined. The presently listed CMC is retained for Mercedes and will hear on a number of issues including confidentiality.

 

This article is now closed for comment.