Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Ethan Thomas Wragg & Ors v Opel Automobile GmbH & Ors

23 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2632 (KB)
High Court
A big lawsuit against Opel for cheating on car emissions tests had some procedural problems. The judge said Opel was being difficult and the problems weren't big enough to stop the case, even though some paperwork was mishandled.

Key Facts

  • •Multi-party litigation alleging German Defendants (Opel) installed defeat devices in Vauxhall vehicles, breaching EU emissions regulations.
  • •Claimants applied for permission to serve claim forms outside the jurisdiction (Part 11 applications) and extensions of time for service (CPR 7.6(2) applications).
  • •German Defendants argued Claimants failed to make full and frank disclosure regarding limitation defenses and the availability of Germany as an alternative forum.
  • •Approximately 75,000 claimants involved.
  • •Claimants' solicitors argued that the non-disclosure was not material to the court's decisions and that addressing limitation in a group action of this scale would be disproportionate at such an early stage.

Legal Principles

Service out of the jurisdiction requires a good arguable case, a serious issue to be tried, and England being the appropriate forum.

CPR 6.36, Altimo Holdings v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd, VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp

Without notice applications require full and frank disclosure of all relevant matters, including those adverse to the applicant.

King’s Bench Guide 2023, Knauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd, ABC International Finance & Investment Co v Banque Franco Tunisienne, MRG (Japan) Ltd v Engelhard Metals Japan Ltd

Materiality of non-disclosure is whether it would have influenced the judge's decision.

Alliance Bank v Zhunus, MRG (Japan) Ltd v Engelhard Metals Japan Ltd, The Libyan Investment Authority v JP Morgan Markets Ltd

Extensions of time for service under CPR 7.6(2) require consideration of the reason for the delay, with a stricter approach when limitation defenses are potentially prejudiced.

Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital and ors v DDM, Qatar Investment v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A., Aktas v Adepta, Collier v Williams

Outcomes

German Defendants' applications to set aside orders for permission to serve claim forms out of the jurisdiction were dismissed.

While the Claimants breached their duty of full and frank disclosure regarding limitation, it was deemed not material enough to warrant setting aside the orders, given the scale and complexity of the group action and the potential for Claimants to rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

German Defendants' applications to set aside orders granting extensions of time for service were dismissed.

The court found that while some of the delay in serving the claim forms lacked 'good reason', the overall circumstances, including the complexity of the multi-party litigation, the uncooperative behaviour of the German Defendants, and the potential for Claimants to successfully rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 justified the exercise of discretion in favour of the Claimants.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.