Alfie Collier & Ors v Stellantis Auto SAS & Ors

A group-litigation cut-off date must be applied according to its purpose and wording. Where an electronic court filing is accepted and made available for download, the claim form is received from the Court at that point; a party cannot postpone the service deadline by delaying access to CE-File. A breach of a group litigation order may attract relief only if the Denton criteria are satisfied. A serious and significant breach, without a good explanation and followed by substantial delay in applying for relief, will ordinarily justify refusal, particularly where relief would prejudice the orderly conduct of the litigation or create a risk of further late claims.

Approximately 5,000 claimants applied to be added to the Peugeot/Citroen/DS NOx Emissions Group Litigation. The group litigation order required claims to be issued by 4 pm on 15 December 2024 and, where the sealed claim form was received from the Court on or after 8 December 2024, served within seven days of receipt.

The claim form was accepted and made available through CE-File on 16 December 2024. The claimants’ solicitor downloaded it and served it on 12 January 2025. The defendants opposed entry on the Group Register, relying on the missed deadline. The claimants argued that receipt occurred only on downloading and alternatively sought amendment of the order or relief from sanctions. The central issues were the meaning of receipt under the order and whether relief should be granted.

1. Construction of the cut-off provision. The claimants’ submission that the claim form was received only when it was downloaded on 12 January 2025 was unsustainable. Under the electronic filing process, the Court notified the submitting party that the document was available on CE-File, and the parties remained responsible for service. The claim form was therefore received from the Court on 16 December 2024. The amended provision was a narrow administrative extension and did not permit an indefinite extension by postponing access to CE-File.
2. Relief from sanctions. Whether framed as an extension of time or relief from sanction, the application engaged the three-stage Denton test. The breach was serious and significant. Its duration could not be treated as minor merely because service occurred within the ordinary four-month period under the CPR, since the GLO imposed a clearly stated and important cut-off date intended to secure the orderly management of the litigation.
3. The claimants had provided no good explanation. The absence of malice, ill-will or tactical advantage did not explain the failure to act on the Court’s notification or the failure to access CE-File earlier. The principle in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537; [2014] 1 WLR 795 showed that overlooking a deadline, including through well-intentioned incompetence, would rarely amount to a good reason.
4. All the circumstances militated against relief. The application was issued approximately a year after the failure to serve. The liability trial had concluded, the quantum trial had been listed, and sample claimants had already been selected from the existing Group Register. Adding the claimants would prejudice the orderly conduct of the proceedings and risk encouraging further late applications. The application was dismissed.