Dieselgate compensation trial for Mercedes drivers to begin at the High Court

The trial will determine the value of the claims of three Mercedes drivers who either owned or leased a Mercedes E220 CDI (Euro 5 type) model. The three claimants are bringing a claim as part of the Pan-NOx Emissions Litigation - the largest group claim in English legal history. 

The compensation, or "quantum" trial follows the judgment in the Dieselgate High Court trial, which was handed down in July. Lady Justice Cockerill found that a 2014 Mercedes E-Class model contained a so-called prohibited defeat device (PDD) which unlawfully altered the operation of its emissions control system during tests and thus did not comply with regulations to limit harmful nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution.

During the quantum trial the claimants will argue that, because their cars contained unlawful technology, they paid more than they were worth and were exposed to a range of financial, regulatory and practical risks. They are seeking compensation reflecting the difference between the value of the vehicle they thought they were buying and the one they actually received, plus damages for distress, disappointment and loss of amenity.

Two of the three claimants, who bought their vehicle using finance, allege losses of a few thousand pounds each. The third claimant, who leased their vehicle for five months, has a lower but still significant claim.

The quantum trial, which is scheduled to finish just before Christmas, will also consider issues of law and legal principle applicable to the value of the breach of contract and breach of statutory duty claims in the Dieselgate legal actions more generally and the judgment may provide guidance on issues of law and legal principal. 

Mercedes denies that claimants have suffered any loss and contends that the fact that the vehicle contained a PDD had no impact on its value.

The July High Court judgment ruled that three of the 20 vehicles examined during the Dieselgate trial contained PDDs - the Mercedes model at the centre of the quantum trial and two Peugeot/Citroen/DS models. The 17 other vehicles, manufactured by Mercedes, Peugeot/Citroen, Ford, Renault and Nissan, were found to contain devices that did not meet the court’s definition of a PDD.

The potential losses suffered by the owners of the Peugeot/Citroen/DS vehicles found to contain a PDD will not be considered at this quantum trial. However, the outcome is expected to provide guidance on compensation for all claimants in the wider litigation, including Peugeot/Citroen/DS, and other manufacturers if the claimants are successful in their attempts to appeal aspects of the July judgment.

While the quantum trial will proceed on the basis that the findings in the Dieselgate trial judgment are correct, lawyers representing the wider group of 1.6 million vehicle owners are seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal the July judgment.

The lead solicitors representing the claimants are Leigh Day and PGMBM (formerly Pogust Goodhead). The counsel for the claimants are Matthew Parker KC, Oliver Campbell KC, John Bignall, Anna Medvinskaia and Alicia Lawson.

Leigh Day's Senior Partner Martyn Day said:

"Our clients paid a premium price for cars with the prestigious Mercedes badge, only for the High Court to rule that they contained unlawful devices designed to avoid official emissions regulations.

"Clearly the cars that the owners received were not the same as advertised when they purchased or leased them from Mercedes.

"The drivers are now seeking fair compensation for what they believe to be a decrease in the value of their cars as well as for the stress, disappointment and loss of amenity they have experienced."

PGMBM's lead partner for the Pan-Nox case Anna Varga said:

"The Quantum Trial against Mercedes-Benz is a crucial next step for our clients. The High Court has already found that Mercedes-Benz installed unlawful defeat devices in some of its vehicles, and this trial will now consider and quantify the loss suffered by the motorists who bought them.

“This litigation has always been about holding corporates accountable for wrongdoing and their failures to comply with important environmental law and regulation. We continue to pursue our clients claims with determination and rigour to fight for justice”