The reduced scope of a quantum trial against only one defendant, Mercedes, in the ongoing Pan NOx litigation ‘does not deprive of it real utility’, the High Court has found.
The decision follows Lady Cockerill’s judgment on the first substantive liability trial in the ‘dieselgate’ litigation. She rejected many of the allegations brought on behalf of 1.6 million claimants against car makers Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, and Peugeot/Citroën (PCD) were rejected. Only Mercedes and PCD’s vehicles were found to have prohibited 'defeat devices' to mislead emissions tests.
Considering the claimants’ application to stay proceedings and vacate the quantum trial, currently listed to begin in October, Mr Justice Constable acknowledged that Lady Justice Cockerill’s judgment will reduce the number of claimants for the quantum trial.
He said: ‘Whether the reduced coverage impacts the overall utility of continuing with a quantum trial involves an evaluation which focuses not just on what it may no longer achieve in this regard, but what it may nevertheless achieve.’
Read more
Ordering the quantum trial go ahead with only Mercedes as defendants, the judge found ‘there to be a real prospect that determination of the quantum issues will materially advance, and may assist in unlocking, the litigation from a commercial perspective’.
‘There is a real prospect that the determination of issues of principle will narrow the issues in dispute, reduce the scale of any future trial, and materially assist the parties in evaluating and resolving their claims. In circumstances where substantial resources have already been invested in preparing for a trial later this year, I consider that it makes clear sense to proceed.’
The PCD defendants and claimants will not be included in the quantum trial as ‘the Mercedes quantum trial alone can adequately determine the principal legal questions’, the judge said.
Refusing a stay, the judge was ‘satisfied that the reduced scope of the quantum trial does not deprive it of real utility’, adding: ‘In circumstances where substantial time, effort and resources have already been invested in preparing for trial, I consider that the balance falls clearly in favour of permitting the quantum trial to proceed against Mercedes.’
No comments yet