Britain’s High Court has ruled that vehicles from most major car manufacturers did not contain devices designed to cheat emissions tests, delivering a blow to a mass legal action brought by nearly 1.6 million motorists. In a 369-page judgment handed down today, Lady Justice Cockerill found that with two narrow exceptions, the emissions-control strategies used by Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Nissan, Ford, and Peugeot-Citroen did not constitute “prohibited defeat devices”.
The ruling follows a ten-week trial centred on 20 sample vehicles from the five manufacturers. Around 880,000 claimants had argued they were misled into buying diesel cars that emitted more pollution on the road than in tests, because the vehicles allegedly detected when they were being tested and altered their emissions output. The court rejected that central allegation, stating: “The Court rejected most of the principal allegations advanced against the manufacturers whose vehicles were examined at trial. In the majority of instances, the Court found that the relevant strategy did not constitute a prohibited defeat device.”
“High Court rules most major car firms did not install emissions-cheating devices, rejecting claims by 1.6m motorists.”
Lady Justice Cockerill said that for a device to be prohibited, there must be “an intention to cause the emissions control system to operate differently when it senses it is being tested”. She added that “it was not enough for the Claimants simply to establish that the challenged strategies reduced the effectiveness of emissions-control systems outside the relevant testing conditions.” However, the judge did find that one Mercedes strategy – removed in 2015 – and another used in some Peugeot-Citroen vehicles did amount to defeat devices.
Mercedes-Benz welcomed the ruling but disagreed with the finding against it, saying in a statement: “In our view, the emission control software functionalities are justifiable on both technical and legal grounds. We are actively considering all of our available options, including a potential appeal.” The German carmaker noted the court had found non-compliance in only one of its four sample vehicles.
Solicitors for the motorists noted that Lady Justice Cockerill said if an alternative legal interpretation of “defeat device” were taken, “a larger number of devices would be established, including devices in each of the lead manufacturers cars”. James Oldnall, managing partner at Milberg, which represented some claimants, said: “We are pleased that the court has ruled that Mercedes installed illegal defeat devices, just like Volksw…” – his comment cut off as the judgment’s implications continue to unfold.
The case, one of the largest group actions in English legal history, now faces the prospect of appeals and further hearings over the two devices that were found unlawful.