Aurora Cavallari & Ors v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors

Under CPR 31.14, a party generally has a prima facie right to inspect a document mentioned or directly alluded to in a statement of case. That right may extend to secondary documents annexed to or referred to in the primary document. The court may refuse inspection where proportionality, privilege, the context of the mention, or the relevance and purpose of the secondary document justifies doing so.

Early specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 requires a proper basis for departing from the ordinary sequence of disclosure. In group litigation, the importance or significance of particular documents may more readily justify early disclosure, especially where there is substantial information asymmetry and the documents will assist case management. The overriding touchstone remains proportionality and the justice of the individual case.

The claim concerns alleged prohibited defeat devices in Mercedes diesel vehicles and is subject to a Group Litigation Order involving nearly 300,000 claims. The claimants sought further information, inspection and disclosure under CPR 18, CPR 31.14 and CPR 31.12 during a progress case management conference.

The applications concerned vehicle firmware and hardware information, annexes to type approvals and voluntary update decisions, documents referred to in the generic defence, material underlying KBA decisions, and grounds of appeals against those decisions. The central questions were whether the documents were inspectable because they had been mentioned or directly alluded to in pleadings, and whether early specific disclosure was reasonably necessary and proportionate to the effective management of the group litigation.

1. Disposition. The applications were allowed in part. The defendants were ordered to provide the 1% sample of firmware and hardware information by 21 December 2023 and to disclose specified documents and annexes. Broader requests for correspondence referred to in paragraph 255 of the Generic Defence were refused.
2. CPR 31.14. A document is mentioned where it is directly alluded to. Once that threshold is met, the burden lies on the party resisting inspection to establish good reason for refusing it. Proportionality, privilege, and the reason and context of the mention remain relevant. The same approach applies to secondary documents annexed to or referred to in a primary document, although their status depends on whether they form an integral and necessary part of it.
3. Application. Annexes to the type approvals and voluntary update decisions formed an integral part of those documents and were likely necessary to understand their meaning and implications. They therefore had to be disclosed. The very broad correspondence request was different: the documents had been mentioned only in the context of recording material the claimants had not seen, and inspection was disproportionate.
4. Early disclosure. The test under CPR 31.12 is whether, considering the overriding objective and the consequences of ordering or refusing disclosure, the applicant has shown a proper basis for disclosure before close of pleadings. Something important or significant must be achieved, with proportionality and the justice of the individual case remaining decisive. Group litigation may more readily satisfy that requirement because early disclosure can correct information asymmetry, refine issues and assist case management, but early disclosure remains exceptional.
5. Specific documents concerning the KBA’s investigations, the material underlying KBA decisions, and the grounds of appeals were sufficiently important, identifiable and proportionate to justify early disclosure. The defendants were also required to provide the requested CPR 18 information because reasonable necessity and proportionality were established in light of the forthcoming case management decisions.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier case-management and disclosure decisions within the same group litigation, including [2023] EWHC 1888 (KB).