The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation Aurora Cavallari & Ors v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1339 (KB)
Pan NOx Emissions Litigations, Re
26 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 1222 (KB)
High Court
A judge decided that car companies in a lawsuit must share some data to help choose which cars to test. The judge didn't want to tell everyone exactly how to choose the cars but made sure the car companies would share enough data fairly. They also set limits on the number of cars to test, trying to make sure there's enough testing for a fair result without making the trial too long and complicated.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over sample selection process in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations.
- •Central issue: whether disclosure of firmware is necessary for claimant's sample selection.
- •Claimants argue for sample selection based on firmware prevalence.
- •Defendants argue for selection based on vehicle popularity, opposing firmware disclosure.
- •Court's previous stance: reluctance to dictate specific sample selection methods.
- •Asymmetry of information considered relevant to early disclosure.
- •Pleadings against Ford less specific than those against Mercedes.
- •Multiple defendants involved: Ford, Renault, Peugeot Citroën, Nissan.
- •Trial date: October 2025.
Legal Principles
Court will not dictate specific sample selection methods unless wholly illogical or unrepresentative.
Case law precedent within the Commercial Court
Asymmetry of information is a factor in considering early disclosure in group litigation.
Case law precedent in GLOs and Dieselgate GLOs
Claimants must justify early disclosure, especially if onerous.
Case law precedent in GLOs
Outcomes
Limited disclosure of firmware ordered to assist claimants' sample selection.
Necessary and proportionate given claimants' rational explanation and consistency with Mercedes litigation; addresses information asymmetry.
Number of firmware strings reduced to 100 (providing ~70% coverage) from claimants' request of 150.
Proportionate considering the coverage achieved and workload.
Specific timeframes set for firmware disclosure by each defendant, with flexibility for adjustments based on further evidence.
Balances the needs of all parties, considering the specific circumstances of each defendant.
Number of samples set at 'up to 12' per defendant or defendant pair, encouraging further discussion amongst parties.
Balances the need for a security blanket against settlement with practical considerations for trial management.