The Emissions Scandal

Most members will have a good understanding of the so-called “emissions scandal,” but a quick recap never hurts.  In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to using “defeat devices” to manipulate emissions levels during testing. The scandal initially erupted when it was discovered that Volkswagen had installed such devices in millions of diesel vehicles in order to pass regulatory emissions tests while emitting far more pollutants under normal driving conditions than allowed. 

The ramifications of this discovery led to a series of lawsuits and regulatory actions across the globe, shaking public trust in diesel technology and sparking a wave of litigation. Broader investigations ensued implicating other major manufacturers, suggesting that the use of defeat devices might be more widespread than originally thought.

Fast forward to October 6th this year, when the first major UK court hearing was held to address ongoing litigation accusing major car manufacturers of installing emissions test cheating devices in their vehicles. The case, known as Various Claimants v. Mercedes-Benz Group & Ors, involved prominent companies such as Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Nissan, and Ford. This hearing marks a critical juncture in a complex, long-running legal battle involving allegations of consumer deception and environmental violations reminiscent of a John Grisham novel.

At the heart of the preliminary trial was the issue of whether the UK High Court should adhere to the findings of the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA), which had issued decisions on the presence or absence of these defeat devices in various vehicles. The question also touched on how retained European Union law post-Brexit affects such decisions.

Mercedes-Benz’s legal team argued that the court should only consider KBA decisions made before the UK’s formal exit from the EU on December 31st, 2022. They contended that the claimants’ selective reliance on certain KBA findings, while ignoring others favourable to manufacturers, amounted to “opportunism.” Specifically, Mercedes argued that the claimants wanted the court to be bound by KBA decisions that confirmed the presence of prohibited defeat devices but not by those that found no such devices existed.

The claimants’ counsel countered that the manufacturers were attempting to limit public scrutiny and dodge liability by leveraging a technical interpretation of German administrative law. They stressed that UK consumers could not have been reasonably aware of or involved in KBA processes, and should not be bound by them. The barrister also urged the judge to rule that only the KBA’s vehicle recall decisions were binding on the claimants under both English and EU law, leaving the interpretation of other decisions to a full trial scheduled for October 2025.

This hearing is a part of a monumental litigation process that has seen around 326 claims involving approximately 1.25 million motorists filed with the High Court. Sixteen manufacturers, including BMW, Renault, Nissan, and Mercedes-Benz, are named among roughly 1,500 defendants. This case, managed under an unprecedented panel of four judges, reflects the widespread nature of the diesel emissions scandal and its enduring impact on both consumers and the automotive industry.

The decision reached in this hearing is likely to set a precedent for the remaining litigation and potentially impact regulatory and legal frameworks concerning automotive emissions compliance in the UK.