Documents in NOx emissions litigation will be unredacted 'forthwith'

Legal documents in the ongoing ‘dieselgate’ collective action will be unredacted, after the High Court found the information therein was ‘so central’ that it would be impossible to follow the trial without it.

There was ‘no proper justification’ in retaining redactions and the public interest in the case fell in favour of allowing the pleadings to be available in unredacted form, Mr Justice Constable said.

The judgment in Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors centres on the application of the interested parties – ClientEarth, Mums for Lungs CIC and The Scottish NOx Emissions Steering Group – for documents in the litigation to be unredacted. Claimants in the substantive hearing argue that the car manufacturer defendants and others involved in the sale or financing of vehicles used ‘prohibited defeat devices’ in diesel vehicle tests undertaken by regulators. A trial dealing with liability is listed to begin in October.

The application succeeded in full. The pleadings ‘are to be made publicly available in a fully unredacted form forthwith’, along with witness statements and other documents which were designated ‘amber’ or ‘red’ in a traffic light system which was imposed on documents depending on their level of confidentiality.

Referring to confidential documents, the judge said: ‘I have been left in no doubt that the allocation of documents as confidential by the lead defendants has been over-enthusiastic.’

The judge’s findings mean that ‘very few (if any) parts of documents which are to be the subject of exploration at trial’ will be redacted with the majority able to be considered in open court and their contents not subject to any reporting restrictions.

Shazia Yamin, partner at Mishcon de Reya, who acts for Mums for Lungs and ClientEarth, said: ‘The judge has carefully considered the evidence from our clients about the strong public interest in these proceedings and weighed this against arguments of supposed commercial sensitivity advanced by the vehicle manufacturers.

‘This judgment sets a clear precedent that companies cannot simply rely on assertions of confidentiality to keep allegations against them secret.’