High Court Rejects Most ‘Dieselgate’ Claims, Rules in Favor of Car Manufacturers

Key Findings of the High Court Ruling

In a landmark decision, Lady Justice Cockerill's judgment in the high court rejected most allegations brought by UK car owners regarding so-called 'dieselgate' claims against major manufacturers. In her detailed ruling, which was heard between an unspecified period, Judge Cockerill stated that in the majority of instances, the relevant strategies did not constitute prohibited defeat devices—software designed to manipulate test results by altering engine performance under real driving conditions.

However, her findings highlighted that technologies used in some Mercedes and Peugeot-Citroën vehicles might indeed qualify as defeat devices. The judge emphasized that proving an automaker's intention to rig a test required strong evidence, which was often lacking in this case. She noted: 'Not every calibration or emissions-control strategy amounts to a defeat device.' This decision has significant implications for the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding vehicle emissions testing.

Manufacturers’ Responses and Claims

The ruling was broadly welcomed by car manufacturers, with many stating they would consider appealing the decision. Mercedes-Benz expressed satisfaction but indicated it might appeal over a specific model of their vehicles deemed non-compliant due to the functionality being removed in 2015. Similarly, Stellantis (which owns Peugeot-Citroën) also planned to challenge the judgment, citing potential legal and regulatory discrepancies between Great Britain and much of Europe.

Nissan and Renault maintained their stance that no defeat devices were used in their vehicles. Both manufacturers welcomed the ruling but emphasized their compliance with existing regulations.

Legal Implications and Reactions

The case brought by 20 law firms, including Leigh Day and Pogust Goodhead, highlighted a significant divergence between UK and EU regulations regarding what constitutes a 'defeat device.' Claimants argued that this legal difference could allow for practices deemed illegal in Europe to be permissible in the UK. Leigh Day, one of the leading law firms involved, expressed disappointment over the ruling. Senior partner Martyn Day said: 'The high court has found that despite their denials, other manufacturers also used VW-style defeat devices. The judge has also found that many other defeat devices are lawful because she surprisingly disagreed with the established EU case law on what a defeat device is.' Leigh Day stated they were considering an appeal with their clients.

Pogust Goodhead’s Anna Varga added: 'The judgment does not bring this litigation to an end. The court has found that certain manufacturers installed unlawful defeat devices, but it also adopted a significantly narrower interpretation of the law than that applied elsewhere in Europe.' This legal divergence has raised concerns among environmental campaigners and legal experts about potential loopholes in UK automotive regulations.

Car manufacturers like Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Nissan, and Renault welcomed the judgment but emphasized their compliance with regulatory requirements. The decision, however, has sparked debate over whether stricter European standards are necessary to address real-world emissions issues. Environmental campaigners argue that while these vehicles may not have used defeat devices in the UK, they still pose significant health risks.

The campaign group Mums for Lungs expressed disappointment, stating: 'This is a setback, but it does not change the scientific consensus—that these diesel cars are toxic.' Its director, Jemima Hartshorn, emphasized the importance of manufacturers acting swiftly to address their vehicles' issues.

Source: The Guardian