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

In complex group litigation, the court may require information from each claimant where it is necessary to plead a complete cause of action, identify suitable lead claims, or enable a reasonably informed assessment of quantum. The exercise must remain proportionate, taking account of the number of claims, the causes of action, the burden of obtaining information and the risk of later satellite litigation.

A claimant’s entry onto a group register should not depend on agreement with a steering committee about contributions to common costs. If necessary, the court may impose a payment mechanism. In unusually complex litigation involving numerous causes of action, a presumptive costs order may postpone assessment of a settling claimant’s share of common costs until after trial.

The claimants in 72 related claims sought a group litigation order concerning alleged defeat devices in Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles. The defendants supported a GLO and the parties agreed that the claims raised common or related issues of fact and law. The remaining disputes concerned the wording of the GLO and the Schedules of Core Information to be completed by claimants.

The court considered geographical eligibility, contributions to common costs, the costs consequences of settlement, and the extent of information required about vehicle acquisition, finance, disposal and alleged loss. The central issues were whether proposed requirements were necessary and proportionate for effective group management.

The application for a group litigation order was granted, subject to approval by the President of the King’s Bench Division. The court approved the agreed provisions and determined the disputed provisions as follows.

1. Eligibility. The group requirement was amended to provide that the relevant vehicle must have been acquired in the UK or the Channel Islands. This avoided unnecessarily excluding claims potentially governed by Scottish or Northern Irish law while preserving the ability to give later directions about their treatment.
2. Common-cost contributions. Entry onto the Group Register could not be made conditional upon a claimant or solicitor reaching agreement with the Steering Committee about contributions. Such a condition would give the committee an inappropriate veto and could force otherwise suitable claims into inefficient unitary proceedings. If required, the court could make a “pay as you go” order requiring contributions during the litigation.
3. Settlement costs. A presumptive order was appropriate under paragraph 42(f), postponing determination of a settling claimant’s share of common costs until after trial of the lead claims or GLO issues. The approach in Sayers and ors v Merck SmithKline Beecham plc [2002] 1 WLR 2274 was not universally applicable. The large number of claims and different causes of action created a compelling need to avoid satellite disputes.
4. Schedules of Core Information. The information required had to balance the need to plead complete individual claims, identify potential lead claimants and assess likely quantum against the cost and complexity of obtaining information from more than 300,000 claimants. The court generally preferred obtaining relevant information once in a single document, while allowing “Not known” or approximate answers where appropriate.
5. The court therefore required information about the type of acquisition agreement, whether relevant dates were exact or approximate, purchase and disposal values, and finance payments. It rejected unnecessary reservations concerning alleged additional fuel, AdBlue, running or maintenance costs, but allowed a “Not known” answer where claimants could not say whether a software update had been applied.

Not stated in the judgment.