High Court Addresses GLO Applications in NOx Emissions Group Litigation: Key Legal Principles and Outcomes

Citation: [2024] EWHC 208 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice in the UK addressed a set of GLO (Group Litigation Order) applications in the case titled “Various Claimants v Nissan Motor Co Ltd & Ors.” The case, presided over by Senior Master Cook, dealt with several legal issues relating to group litigation concerning NOx Emissions. The themes of the case primarily revolve around the principles of case management, procedural fairness, limitation issues, ATE (After the Event) insurance, and the steering committee for the litigation among other factors.

Key Facts

The NOx Emissions Group Litigation involved approximately 480,000 claims against various car manufacturers related to alleged illegal levels of nitrogen oxides in vehicle emissions. The causes of action pursued were broadly similar, with differences concerning competition claims, conspiracy, and the Consumer Credit Act 1974, depending on the specific defendant manufacturers involved.

The hearing addressed the disagreements between claimants and defendants regarding the organization and administration of the litigation, particularly in reference to GLO applications. This encompassed disputes on the inclusion of specifics in the Group Register, determination of lead claims, limitation defenses, sufficiency and necessity of ATE insurance coverage, and the organization and duties of a proposed Steering Committee.

The judgments referenced various principles, primarily from procedural law and the rules governing group litigation. Key principles from the CPR (Civil Procedure Rules) were applied, including:

  • Active Case Management: The need for active case management to control costs (CPR r.1.4) and the potentially disproportionate nature of costs in relation to claims was highlighted.

  • Procedural Fairness: The court considered the requirement for transparency and fairness in the litigation process, particularly in determining the extent of the defendants’ knowledge of claims against them.

  • Limitation Issues: In addressing time-barred claims, the court referred to principles from cases like “Boake Allen Limited v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs” and “Europcar UK Limited v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs” regarding limitation.

  • Group Litigation Specifics: The judgment clarified the parameters of the Group Register, the scope of issues to be tried on a common basis, and the structure of the Steering Committee.

  • After the Event Insurance: The court also discussed the role of ATE insurance in litigation funding and as a conditional aspect of GLOs.

Outcomes

The court ruled on the following:

  • Group Register: The specifics of the Group Register need not include intricate details of individual claims against each defendant at this stage of litigation.

  • Lead Claims: The decision on Lead Claims is reserved for managing judges at the appropriate time, thus negating the need to specify this in the GLO.

  • Limitation: Information relating to the date of vehicle acquisition for potential limitation issues will not be collected at the Group Register stage, reaffirming the need to manage proportionality of cost.

  • Steering Committee: The use of a Steering Committee was approved, noting that its organization and methods are typical in large scale litigation.

  • After The Event Insurance: The necessity for ATE insurance as a condition precedent was disputed, with the court concluding that substantial ATE coverage was in place and adequacy would be reassessed if required at a later stage via security for costs applications.

  • Duties and Structure: The judgments laid out specific duties for case management consistent with the structure indicated in previous analogous GLOs.

Conclusion

In “Various Claimants v Nissan Motor Co Ltd & Ors,” the UK High Court elaborated on and reinforced legal principles concerning group litigation procedure. The rulings reflected a pragmatic approach, favoring cost-effective and fair litigation management while promoting transparency and cooperation among parties. The decisions reiterated that while ATE insurance is a factor, it is not a condition precedent for GLOs. Moreover, the choice and structure of a Steering Committee were left to the discretion of experienced claimants’ solicitors. Overall, the case serves as a precedential guide on handling large-scale group litigation in the UK legal system, balancing the needs for judicial efficiency, procedural integrity, and protection of parties’ rights.