Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors

A non-party’s right under CPR 5.4C(1) to obtain statements of case is a clear default principle reflecting open justice. Restrictions under CPR 5.4C(4) require a clear, fact-sensitive justification and must go no further than necessary and proportionate. Commercial confidentiality must be established by clear and cogent evidence directed to precise information, not broad categories or subjective assertion. Age, technological change, public availability and the absence of concrete evidence of continuing commercial utility may defeat confidentiality. Even genuine confidentiality may yield where the material is central to understanding allegations of serious misconduct and the public interest in disclosure outweighs secrecy.

The judgment concerned the management of extensive group litigation alleging that vehicle manufacturers used prohibited defeat devices in emissions testing. Claimants and interested parties sought unredacted pleadings and witness statements, and the de-designation of documents held in confidentiality rings. The defendants relied on alleged commercial confidentiality in technical parameters, values, firmware information, engineering strategies and related material.

The court considered open justice, access to statements of case under CPR 5.4C(1), restrictions under CPR 5.4C(4), collateral use under CPR 31.22, and claims of confidentiality.

1. Access to pleadings. The applications for unredacted pleadings succeeded. CPR 5.4C(1) creates a very clear default principle that non-parties may obtain statements of case. Any restriction under CPR 5.4C(4) is a derogation from open justice and must be necessary, proportionate and supported by clear justification. The applicant need not establish a special reason for access unless an improper purpose is alleged. The technical parameters and values were indispensable to understanding the pleaded allegations, and the public interest outweighed any residual commercial confidentiality (paras [21], [48]–[62]).
2. Confidentiality. The burden lay on the defendants to provide clear and cogent evidence of a real risk of damage. Confidentiality had to be assessed by reference to precise contents, rather than whole documents or broad categories. The evidence concerning old Euro 5 and early Euro 6 technical parameters was generic and did not show realistic continuing utility to competitors. Age, regulatory change, obsolescence and public availability weakened the claims. Prima facie credible allegations of serious misconduct also engaged the iniquity exception (paras [23], [51]–[60]).
3. Witness evidence and disclosure. Redactions to parameters, values, graphs, maps and equivalent data in witness statements were removed. Narrative material concerning calibration, testing and ROM-DR meetings was insufficiently specific and largely anodyne, so its redaction was unjustified. Wholesale de-designation of disclosure was refused because categories were heterogeneous and the evidential exercise had not been sufficiently focused.
4. Orders. Firmware, A2L and FFD files remained confidential, subject to specified exceptions. Other Red material was generally redesignated Amber, with liberty to apply for focused redactions. Amber material referred to in public proceedings would be reportable, and CPR 31.22(1)(a) would apply to the relevant part only. The pleadings and witness statements were to be unredacted forthwith (paras [73]–[92]).