Mark Allsopp v Bayerische Motoren Werke Akteingesellschaft & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2710 (KB)
Alex Not & Ors v Jaguar Land Rover Limited & Ors
18 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2920 (KB)
High Court
Thousands of people are suing Jaguar Land Rover because of problems with their diesel cars' filters. A judge decided to group all the cases together to make things easier and cheaper. There was a small argument about what information the people suing need to provide, and the judge decided on a compromise.
Key Facts
- •Approximately 42,000 claims have been issued against Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and others regarding alleged defects in diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems in JLR vehicles.
- •The claims involve breach of contract, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT), Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), breach of guarantee, and breach of statutory duty.
- •Similar claims are being pursued in America and Australia.
- •The parties agreed to a Group Litigation Order (GLO), but disagreed on the content of the Schedule of Claimant Information (SOCI).
Legal Principles
A GLO may only be made in the King's Bench Division with the consent of the President of the Division.
CPR 19.22(2)(d)
The court must strike a proportionate balance between including necessary information for specifying a complete cause of action and identifying lead cases, and keeping the exercise straightforward to minimize excessive costs.
Cavallari v Mercedes-Benz Group [2023] EWHC 512 (KB)
Outcomes
A GLO was made for the conduct of the litigation.
The large number of claims, the likelihood of further claims, the differing causes of action and defendants depending on individual circumstances, and the similar management of claims in other jurisdictions all pointed towards the appropriateness of a GLO.
Question 41 (regarding the basis of Claimants' understanding of the DPF system issues) was included in the SOCI.
The information is known to the Claimants and will assist in identifying lead cases. The cost of inclusion is considered proportionate to the overall cost savings of a GLO compared to individual pleadings.
The Claimants' formulation of question 43 (regarding incurred expenses related to identified issues) was preferred over the Defendants' version.
The Defendants' version was deemed too difficult for many Claimants to answer confidently. The Claimants' version focuses on readily available out-of-pocket expenses.
A managing judge will be appointed in October 2025.
No substantive case management will take place until early 2026.