Pan-NOx Emissions Group Litigation (Funding Information and Disclosure Hearing 21 November 2025)

Where a party relies on the adequacy of after-the-event insurance to resist an application concerning security for costs, the opposing party must reasonably engage with that issue. If the issue forms part of the contested application, the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies.

Where success is divided, the court may make proportionate deductions to reflect the parties’ relative success on particular issues, including the amount and timing of security and the wording of an insurance policy. Costs should ordinarily be agreed by reference to the relevant schedules, with disputed matters determined on the papers where necessary.

This first-instance judgment concerned costs arising from applications by vehicle manufacturers for information about the funding of claimants in the Pan-NOx group litigation.

The applications initially proceeded on the basis that entities within the Gramercy group did not fall within CPR 25.28 for security-for-costs purposes. The relevant claimants later accepted that they were within its scope, and some claimants conceded liability for costs relating to that issue. The court had to determine whether costs concerning the adequacy of after-the-event insurance should also be recoverable, and how costs should be allocated where the JLG claimants achieved only partial success.

1. PG and TLW claimants. The court rejected the submission that costs concerning the adequacy of after-the-event insurance should be excluded. That issue arose as a defence to the applications because the claimants relied on the insurance to argue that security for costs, and consequently funding disclosure, would not be required. Once raised, the applicants had to engage with it. Had that position succeeded in a contested application, the applicants would have lost. The ordinary rule that reasonable costs follow the event therefore applied.
2. The court declined to reduce costs because of the length or content of the relevant witness statement. The matters addressed were at least arguably relevant to the relationship between the Gramercy entities and the claimants, which would have been examined had the applications been contested.
3. Venus Legal claimants. The relevant claimant conceded liability for the applicants’ costs.
4. JLG claimants. The applicants were the more successful parties overall because they obtained more security than had been offered and achieved some success concerning staged increases. Nevertheless, deductions were required to reflect the JLG claimants’ success on the level of insurance and cut-off date, and the success of PCD and Vauxhall on the wording of the insurance policy. The court ordered 100% of reasonable costs up to the hearing, and 75% of hearing-attendance costs, for the other JLG applicants. PCD and Vauxhall were awarded 80% of pre-hearing reasonable costs and 60% of hearing-attendance costs.
5. The parties were directed to attempt agreement of the amounts payable from the costs schedules. Any unresolved issues were to be determined on the papers, followed by an order reflecting the agreements or determinations.

The judgment records that the costs applications followed the substantive funding-information judgment in the same litigation, [2025] EWHC 3116 (KB). No appellate history is stated.