London court largely defeats Dieselgate emissions claims against major carmakers, ruling most challenged software was not a prohibited defeat device
A London judge has largely sided with several major carmakers in a significant group action brought by drivers alleging that their diesel vehicles were fitted with unlawful emissions-cheating software. The ruling found that most of the engine management technologies being challenged did not constitute prohibited defeat devices under the applicable emissions regulations. However, the judge did criticise the design of certain systems used by Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot-Citroën, suggesting those manufacturers are not entirely clear of the litigation even if the bulk of the claims failed. The ruling represents a significant setback for the claimant group and their lawyers, given the volume of individual claims that had been assembled around this litigation. The UK 'Dieselgate' litigation has been one of the largest group consumer claims in English legal history, following the original Volkswagen emissions scandal that emerged in 2015. Claimant law firms had sought to extend the legal theory beyond the VW software at the centre of the original US and European settlements to cover a wider range of engine management systems used across the industry. Friday's ruling sharply narrows the viable claims and is likely to reduce the pool of potentially recoverable damages for affected drivers. Appeals on the specific findings relating to Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot-Citroën remain a live possibility.
Why this matters
A ruling that defeats the majority of Dieselgate claims is commercially significant both for the carmakers and for the litigation funding and claimant law firm market that has built business models around mass consumer claims in English courts. The finding that most challenged software was not a prohibited defeat device narrows the legal theory that claimant firms had been deploying, and will affect the viability of outstanding and threatened claims across the sector. The targeted criticism of Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot-Citroën systems keeps the door open for narrower follow-on litigation and potentially appeals, which will keep disputes teams busy even as the broader claim population shrinks. For City disputes practices, the case illustrates the growing importance of technical expert evidence in product liability litigation involving complex engineering systems.
On the Ground
A trainee on a case like this would be engaged in disclosure review and categorisation of the large volumes of technical documents produced by the defendant carmakers. After judgment, they would assist with preparing costs schedules reflecting the successful defendants' entitlement to legal costs from unsuccessful claimants, and would research the grounds of any potential appeal on the Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot-Citroën findings.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What are the implications of this Dieselgate ruling for the group litigation and litigation funding market in England and Wales?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved