More than a dozen major car manufacturers did not fit their diesel vehicles with devices designed to cheat emissions tests, the High Court has ruled – a landmark decision that rejects the core allegations brought by nearly 880,000 motorists.
Lady Justice Cockerill, in a 369-page ruling handed down today after a ten-week trial that concluded in March, said the court “rejected most of the principal allegations advanced against the manufacturers whose vehicles were examined at trial.” The judgment examined 20 “sample vehicles” made by Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Nissan, Ford, and Peugeot and Citroën. The court found that “in the majority of instances, the relevant strategy did not constitute a prohibited defeat device” – the term used for technology that lets a car detect an emissions test and alter its performance to pass.
“High Court rules most carmakers did not use emissions-cheating devices, but finds exceptions in Mercedes and Peugeot-Citroen.”
The ruling is a significant blow to the group of around 1.6 million motorists who brought the case, claiming they were misled about the environmental performance of diesel vehicles made from 2009 onwards. The claimants’ barristers had argued that the devices installed in the cars allowed them to sense when they were being tested and reduce harmful emissions artificially. However, the judge found that not every calibration or emissions-control strategy amounts to a defeat device. For a device to be found, she said, “there needs to be an intention to cause the emissions control system to operate differently when it senses it is being tested.” She added: “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.”
But the ruling was not a complete clean sheet for the manufacturers. The court did find that two strategies constituted prohibited defeat devices: one used in Mercedes cars that was removed in 2015, and another used in some Peugeot-Citroën vehicles. Mercedes welcomed the overall ruling but said it disagreed with the judgment that one of its four sample vehicles was non-compliant prior to a software update. “In our view, the emission control software functionalities are justifiable on both technical and legal grounds,” the German carmaker said. “We are actively considering all of our available options, including a potential appeal.”
Solicitors for the claimants noted that Justice Cockerill said “if an alternative approach to the meaning 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 of the claimants, said: “We are pleased that the court has ruled that Mercedes installed illegal defeat devices, just like Volksw…”. The judgment leaves open the possibility of further legal battles, with the interpretation of what constitutes a defeat device likely to be contested – a question that now hangs over the millions of diesel cars still on Britain’s roads.