High Court Addresses Disclosure Requests in Mercedes Diesel Defeat Device Group Litigation

Introduction

In the High Court case of Aurora Cavallari & Ors v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors, Justice Constable provides a comprehensive judgment on several procedural matters related to group litigation arising from allegations of prohibited defeat devices in diesel engines of Mercedes vehicles. The judgment addresses applications for further information, inspection, and disclosure under CPR 18, 31.14, and 31.12, considering the principles of proportionality, relevance, and the “mention” of documents in pleadings.

Key Facts

The group litigation involves close to 300,000 claimants who allege that Mercedes vehicles contained prohibited defeat devices designed to bypass statutory controls on vehicle emissions. The defendants deny the presence of any such devices in the disputed vehicles. The litigation operates under a Group Litigation Order, and the judgment in question concerns applications related to providing further information about the disputed vehicles and the associated documents as they relate to emissions regulations and the appeal process within the KBA (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, or German Federal Motor Transport Authority) decisions.

Legal Principles

CPR Part 31.14: This rule permits a party to inspect documents directly mentioned in pleadings. Justice Constable reiterates the principle that the onus falls on the party opposing inspection to establish good cause for refusal. The term “mentioned” was interpreted broadly, encompassing annexed or referred documents when integral to the primary document.

CPR Rule 31.12: Justice Constable applied the principles set out by Coulson J in Bullring Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Midlands, noting that specific disclosure applications are judged based on proportionality and the justice of the circumstances. The importance or significance of documents and the stage of litigation are crucial factors.

Specific Applications: The judgment meticulously applies these principles to specific applications regarding annexes to disclosed KBA documents, material relevant to alleged appeal processes, and the hardware and software details of the vehicles in the group register. The court emphasized the necessity of informative disclosure to resolve information asymmetry, especially when that information aids in the proper case management of complex group litigation.

Outcomes

The court ordered disclosure of annexes and documents integral to Type Approvals and Voluntary Update Decisions issued by the KBA, correspondence with the KBA referred to in a public letter dated 5 July 2023, and specific documentation cited in the Recall Decisions and Mandatory Updates.

Justice Constable decided that the request for ‘Type Approvals and Model Information, as well as relevant correspondence between the Manufacturer Defendants and the KBA and/or other Type Approval authorities’ was too broadly sought under CPR 31.14 and was therefore disproportionate given the context of the ‘mention’ in pleadings.

The Defendants were directed to provide 1% of the sample information regarding firmware and hardware by 21 December 2023, emphasizing the importance of such disclosure in the preparation for the two-day case management conference scheduled for March the following year.

Conclusion

The judgment in Aurora Cavallari & Ors v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors underlines the court’s dedication to ensuring that the litigation process is fair, orderly, and proportionate. Justice Constable applied established disclosure principles while adapting them to the unique context of group litigation, where the court’s management role is magnified due to the case’s complexity and the significance of the issues at stake. The outcomes provide clarity on the extent and limitations of the defendants’ obligations to provide information, balancing the need for disclosure against the practicalities and reasonableness of such requests.