IN THE NEWS
DIESELGATE EMISSIONS CLAIMS WORTH AT LEAST £6 BILLION HIGH COURT TOLD
The largest legal claim of its kind in English history against more than a dozen car manufacturers has been valued at at least £6 billion, the High Court has been told. Around 1.5 million claims have been issued against 13 car manu- facturers in the wake of the 2015 “dieselgate” emissions revelations. Those taking legal action either bought, leased or otherwise acquired a diesel vehicle made by one of the companies, with most living in England and Wales but some living elsewhere in the UK. The mass legal action centres on allegations that manufacturers tried to “cheat” emissions tests by using banned “defeat devices” on diesel vehicles made by Mercedes- Benz, Opel/Vauxhall, Nissan/
Renault, Volkswagen/Porsche,
Peugeot/ Citroen, Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, BMW, FCA/Suzuki, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota/Mazda. In written submissions for a three- day hearing in London to manage the costs of the case, which began on Monday 10 June, barrister Ben- jamin Williams KC said: “Even if the claims were valued conservatively at c.£4,000 per claim, that would give an overall value of at least £6 billion to these proceedings.” Mr Williams also said that the budgets for both sides already stood at over £300 million. In December last year, a judge said the legal action was “unprece- dented” in scale, with a previous hearing told that it involves more than 1,500 defendants, once
dealerships are taken into account. One manufacturer, Mercedes, is facing more than 300,000 claims alone, the earlier hearing was told. The case is expected to run for many years, with some hearings already scheduled for 2026. In a separate ruling in the case on Tuesday, a judge ordered Renault and Peugeot Citroen to hand over documents to law firms represent- ing those bringing legal action. The companies claimed at a hearing in May that a French law, known as the French Blocking Statute, would put the companies or employees at risk of prosecution in France if they disclosed inform- ation but Mrs Justice Cockerill said that there was “no real risk of prosecution in this case”.
30
JULY 2024 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
