A high court judge has ruled that vehicles from a host of major car manufacturers did not contain devices alleged to have allowed them to cheat on emissions tests, delivering a blow to the claims of around 880,000 motorists who had argued they were misled.
Lady Justice Cockerill said in a 369-page ruling handed down today that most of the strategies used by five manufacturers – Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Nissan, Ford, and Peugeot-Citroen – did not constitute prohibited defeat devices (PDDs). The ten-week trial, which concluded in March, examined 20 sample vehicles representing more than a dozen carmakers facing a group action brought by about 1.6 million motorists.
“High Court rules most major carmakers did not install emissions-cheating devices, but finds exceptions for Mercedes and Peugeot-Citroen.”
"The court rejected most of the principal allegations advanced against the manufacturers whose vehicles were examined at trial," the judgement said. "In the majority of instances, the court found that the relevant strategy did not constitute a prohibited defeat device."
However, the judge found two exceptions: a strategy in Mercedes cars that was removed in 2015, and another used in some Peugeot-Citroen vehicles. Mercedes welcomed the overall ruling but said it disagreed with the finding that one of its four sample vehicles was not compliant prior to the software update. "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 said.
Barristers for the motorists had told the trial that the devices installed in the cars allowed the vehicles to detect when they were being tested and alter the amount of harmful emissions produced so they fell within regulations. But the court found that not every calibration or emissions-control strategy amounted to a defeat device. "For a defeat device to be found, there needs to be an intention to cause the emissions control system to operate differently when it senses it is being tested," the judge said. "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."
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 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 Volkswagen."