The first round of the high-profile diesel emissions litigation, often referred to as “Dieselgate,” has gone to the claimants, with the High Court delivering a significant blow to Mercedes-Benz. The ruling rejected the company’s argument that British courts should be bound by decisions of the German motor transport regulator, the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (KBA). This decision sets a crucial precedent for the 2025 trial involving multiple car manufacturers.
The Case Against Mercedes
Mercedes-Benz contended that the KBA’s original type approvals of their vehicles – which stated they complied with emissions regulations – should be binding on courts in both Germany and England. This would effectively prevent British consumers from bringing claims over prohibited defeat devices (PDDs) in the UK.
However, Mr. Justice Constable firmly dismissed this argument. He highlighted expert evidence confirming that the KBA’s approvals would not preclude such claims under German law and therefore could not be binding under English law.
Additionally, the judge ruled that Mercedes’ so-called “voluntary update decisions,” which purportedly removed PDDs outside of the regulatory process, were unlawful.
What This Means for Claimants
Claimants argue that these updates were covert attempts by Mercedes to sidestep regulatory oversight and mitigate the presence of PDDs in their vehicles. This ruling strengthens their position, providing a pathway for consumers to hold the automaker accountable in British courts.
While claimants must still prove the presence of PDDs for vehicles not subject to mandatory recalls, this judgment marks a decisive step toward the trial set for October 2025. The court also acknowledged mandatory recalls initiated by the KBA to remove confirmed PDDs, ensuring that these regulatory actions are legally binding on both sides.
Industry-Wide Implications
This ruling carries ramifications beyond Mercedes. Other manufacturers, including Volkswagen, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Citroën, and Peugeot, are under scrutiny for alleged emissions irregularities. Several manufacturers, such as Volkswagen and Nissan, made submissions in the preliminary hearing due to the potential impact on their own cases.
Jamie Patton, Managing Director at Johnson Law Group, said: “This is a great step forward in the Emissions Claims scandal and a clear “win” for claimants in what is the first of three trial judgements on substantive issues the High Court has to give.
“This is likely to bring more pressure to bear on the car companies that tried to cheat the system.”
Regulatory and Consumer Implications
The Department for Transport is currently investigating 47 diesel vehicles for possible PDDs, with enforcement action expected where emissions breaches are confirmed. The High Court’s decision underscores the importance of such scrutiny and bolsters consumer confidence in pursuing justice against powerful corporations.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision is a watershed moment in the Dieselgate litigation, signalling that British courts are committed to holding automakers accountable for emissions misconduct. For consumers, it represents a critical step toward justice and greater transparency within the automotive industry. With the second major trial set for October 2025, this case will continue to shape the landscape of consumer rights and corporate responsibility in the UK.
