Dieselgate drivers face fresh setback in fight for compensation

Lawyers for 1.6 million UK drivers will ask the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge July’s diesel emissions ruling after a fresh High Court setback.

The High Court has refused to give lawyers for 1.6 million drivers in England and Wales permission to appeal its July ruling on the “dieselgate” emissions claims. But the legal battle isn’t over. Lawyers say they will now ask the Court of Appeal directly for permission to appeal.

Lady Justice Cockerill, who presided over the 13-week trial, gave her decision on 8 October, the second day of a two-day hearing, and said she will set out her reasons in writing later.

Martyn Day, senior partner at Leigh Day, one of the firms leading the claims, said:

“While we are obviously disappointed with the decision, this is far from the end of the road for the 1.6 million clients bringing a legal claim over Dieselgate.”

The decision is another setback for drivers hoping for compensation, but it doesn’t bring the legal proceedings to an end.

Get free Consumer Voice alerts about diesel emissions claims and other major consumer compensation cases.

What the High Court decided in July

In July, the High Court rejected most of the allegations that carmakers fitted illegal “defeat devices” designed to make vehicles appear less polluting during emissions tests.

Of the 20 sample vehicles examined, the court found a prohibited defeat device in only three: one Mercedes and two Peugeot/Citroën models. The other 17, made by Mercedes, Peugeot/Citroën, Ford, Renault and Nissan, did not meet the court’s definition.

The trial examined key legal questions using sample vehicles, with findings that could affect the much wider group of claims. It did not decide how much compensation individual drivers might receive.

Why lawyers say the diesel emissions ruling is wrong

Day said the claimants believe the judgment relied on too narrow a definition of a defeat device, that it contradicts EU law, and that some of the technical evidence should be looked at again.

A central argument is that the ruling leaves drivers in England and Wales with different protections from those in much of Europe. Because the judge chose not to follow several decisions of the EU’s top court made since Brexit, lawyers for the claimants argue that devices likely to be unlawful in the EU are currently permitted here.

Anna Varga, lead partner on the case at Pogust Goodhead, said she was disappointed that permission wasn’t granted and believes the questions raised deserve to be considered by the Court of Appeal.

She also pointed out that the judge recognised that, if her interpretation of the emissions rules is ultimately found to be wrong, most of the sample vehicles would contain prohibited defeat devices.

Manufacturers could also appeal

According to Monckton Chambers, whose barristers are acting for Ford and Nissan, the judge rejected the claimants’ argument that the July findings only apply to the 20 sample vehicles, rather than other versions of those cars or the wider group of vehicles in the claims.

She also refused requests to introduce further evidence about other vehicles and to reopen part of the judgment concerning Nissan and Renault.

The manufacturers could also be heading to the Court of Appeal. Monckton says the judge indicated she would give them permission to challenge her finding that drivers can, in principle, claim damages where their vehicle contains an unlawful defeat device.

Legal costs could exceed more than £100 million

Monckton says the judge awarded Nissan and Renault a large share of their legal costs, with advance payments to all the manufacturers involved expected to exceed £100 million.

Leigh Day welcomed the court’s decision not to award the manufacturers the higher level of indemnity costs for the main trial. However, Monckton says Nissan and Renault were awarded indemnity costs on a separate application to reopen part of the judgment.

Day said that although the claimants did not succeed in every case, they were successful on several key aspects of the claim, which he said the judge’s rulings reflect.

These costs decisions concern the litigation itself. They do not mean individual drivers are automatically being asked to pay a share of the £100 million. Any personal liability would depend on the arrangements for their claim, including its funding and insurance protections.

What happens next for diesel emissions claimants?

The claims have suffered a significant setback, but no final decision has been made about compensation for individual drivers.

Lawyers will now seek permission to appeal directly from the Court of Appeal. It could refuse that request, and even if permission is granted, there is no guarantee the appeal will succeed. It’s not yet clear how long this stage will take.

If you’ve joined a claim through a law firm, keep an eye on updates from them. They should explain how the latest decisions affect your claim, whether you need to do anything and what the costs ruling means for you.

Want to keep up with the latest developments? Sign up for free Consumer Voice alerts about diesel emissions claims and other major consumer compensation cases.