Alex Not & Ors v Jaguar Land Rover Limited & Ors

A Group Litigation Order may be made where claims raise common or related issues and group management would further the overriding objective. Agreement between the parties is relevant but does not determine the application. Scale, likely expansion of the claimant group, participation by multiple firms, differing causes of action and defendants, and the suitability of lead cases may justify a GLO.

Schedules of Information should strike a proportionate balance between supplying information needed for case management and avoiding disproportionate cost. They are not a substitute for full pleadings. Questions may properly seek factual information within claimants’ knowledge, including the basis for attributing vehicle problems to an alleged defect. At an early stage, questions about specific out-of-pocket expenses may be preferable to a broad request for total loss.

The claimants applied for a Group Litigation Order concerning alleged defects in diesel particulate filter systems fitted to Jaguar Land Rover vehicles. The proposed claims included breach of contract and guarantee, statutory and consumer remedies, claims under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Consumer Credit Act 1974, and breach of statutory duty.

Approximately 42,000 claims had been issued for about 39,000 claimants, with further claims expected. The parties agreed that a GLO should be made but disagreed about two questions in the proposed Schedule of Claimant Information: whether claimants should explain the basis for attributing identified vehicle problems to the DPF system, and whether they should provide an estimate of total loss.

1. GLO made. The court concluded that a GLO was appropriate. Party agreement was not determinative. The very large and potentially expanding claimant group, the likelihood of claims by other firms, the differing causes of action and defendants, and the usefulness of lead cases supported group management. The President of the King’s Bench Division gave the necessary consent under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 19.22(2)(d).
2. Schedule of Information. The court applied the proportionate balance identified in Cavallari v Mercedes-Benz Group [2023] EWHC 512 (KB). The purpose of the schedules was to avoid the expense of full individual pleadings while providing information sufficient to identify lead cases and assess claims.
3. Question 41 was included. It naturally followed the question identifying vehicle problems. The information was within claimants’ knowledge and would assist in selecting appropriate lead cases. Any additional cost was proportionate in the context of the litigation and the agreed 25% sample.
4. The claimants’ wording of question 43 was preferred. Requiring an estimate of total loss would be difficult for many claimants to answer reliably at that stage and could produce speculative information. An approximate total of expenses such as repair bills and increased servicing requirements would provide useful hard information about valuation while avoiding unnecessary speculation.
5. The court directed that no substantive case management would take place until early 2026. A managing judge was to be appointed in October 2025. The GLO order was made in the terms attached to the judgment, with the costs of the application in the case and permission to restore.