VW/Audi lose in UK Court "Dieselgate" battle 6th April
Discussion
Received this morning...
"Dear Claimant
Success at the High Court
We’re delighted to inform you that Judgment in the Preliminary Issues trial that took place last December has now been handed down and that the Claimants have been successful on both issues the Court was asked to consider.
Although this victory is an important step towards concluding this claim, it’s not the end of the litigation.
Why is this important?
Success in the Preliminary Issues is important because the crux of the claims you’re bringing is that VW deceived you as to the compliance of your vehicles with EU Emissions Regulations. This is because, we argue, your engines contained software called a defeat device which sensed when the vehicle was being tested and so artificially reduced emissions in order to pass that test. To be successful in establishing deceit and the other claims our clients are bringing, one issue the Claimants needed to show was that the software was in fact a defeat device. VW’s position has always been that when the law was properly considered, the software did not meet the legal definition of a defeat device.
To resolve this issue, the court was asked to consider two issues of law which were as follows:
Is the German Regulator’s decisions that the software was a ‘defeat device’ binding on the English High Court; and
Does the fact that the engine operates in different modes during the emissions test mean that it contained a ‘defeat device’ under the Regulations?
The answers we were seeking, and the answers the Court has now given on both issues, was “yes”.
This means that the English court considers itself bound by the German Regulator’s finding that the software was a defeat device. However, even if that’s wrong, the court also decided the question for itself and from the evidence it has seen, considers the software to be a defeat device.
Criticism of VW
The Judge was also critical of VW’s actions in denying that the software was a defeat device. He found that VW’s actions in not appealing the German Regulator’s decision, when it had the ability to, and then mounting a defence to the same accusation in this litigation was an ‘abuse of process’. The Judge variously considered the Defence mounted by VW as “specious”, “hopeless” and “absurd” and concluded that the existence of the defeat device software was a “fundamental subversion” of the emissions tests.
What will happen next?
We don’t know what VW’s next steps will be, but it’s possible that they will look to appeal this decision. The fact that the English High Court considers itself bound by the German Regulator’s decision has significant implications for VW in litigation its facing across the EU. This is particularly so when VW is still so adamant, based on its public statements, that it has done nothing wrong.
The Court’s finding that the software is a defeat device confirms that your claim is on a solid legal foundation as we approach the next potential phase of the litigation: to establish that VW deceived each of its customers and that they deserve to be properly compensated for that wrongdoing.
It’s time for VW to Settle
In our view, VW’s continued denial of its liability to its UK customers and refusal to offer adequate compensation is, to adopt language used by the Judge, absurd. That view is only reinforced by the comprehensiveness of our victory in the Preliminary Issues trial.
We intend to immediately press VW to engage constructively and urgently in a dialogue to resolve this claim and deliver proper compensation to its impacted customers. We’ll be making those calls publicly and through the court process. However, as I’m sure you will appreciate, only VW can pay compensation and settlement can only be achieved with their agreement.
Given that we don’t know how VW will react, we’ll be forced to continue to advance the litigation for now.
We shall keep you informed as to any decision by VW to appeal the Judgment and whether that appeal is allowed to go ahead, but in the meantime, if you’re keen to read all 97 pages of the Judge’s decision, you can find a copy here. The Judge has also produced a shorter summary of the Judgment which you can find here. We’ll also let you know, if a settlement dialogue is commenced and if alternative steps in the litigation are taken.
I would like to take this opportunity to pass on my thanks to the counsel team, Oliver Campbell QC, Tom de la Mare QC, Adam Heppinstall, Rachel Tandy and Gareth Shires, as well as Alicia Thompson and Kiran Sharma at Slater and Gordon for all their hard work in achieving such a resounding victory.
Kind regards
Gareth Pope
Principal Lawyer
Slater and Gordon"
Full judgement here: https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/320/26288/VWJudgment.pd...
Summary here: https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/020/48599/VWJudgmentSum...
"Dear Claimant
Success at the High Court
We’re delighted to inform you that Judgment in the Preliminary Issues trial that took place last December has now been handed down and that the Claimants have been successful on both issues the Court was asked to consider.
Although this victory is an important step towards concluding this claim, it’s not the end of the litigation.
Why is this important?
Success in the Preliminary Issues is important because the crux of the claims you’re bringing is that VW deceived you as to the compliance of your vehicles with EU Emissions Regulations. This is because, we argue, your engines contained software called a defeat device which sensed when the vehicle was being tested and so artificially reduced emissions in order to pass that test. To be successful in establishing deceit and the other claims our clients are bringing, one issue the Claimants needed to show was that the software was in fact a defeat device. VW’s position has always been that when the law was properly considered, the software did not meet the legal definition of a defeat device.
To resolve this issue, the court was asked to consider two issues of law which were as follows:
Is the German Regulator’s decisions that the software was a ‘defeat device’ binding on the English High Court; and
Does the fact that the engine operates in different modes during the emissions test mean that it contained a ‘defeat device’ under the Regulations?
The answers we were seeking, and the answers the Court has now given on both issues, was “yes”.
This means that the English court considers itself bound by the German Regulator’s finding that the software was a defeat device. However, even if that’s wrong, the court also decided the question for itself and from the evidence it has seen, considers the software to be a defeat device.
Criticism of VW
The Judge was also critical of VW’s actions in denying that the software was a defeat device. He found that VW’s actions in not appealing the German Regulator’s decision, when it had the ability to, and then mounting a defence to the same accusation in this litigation was an ‘abuse of process’. The Judge variously considered the Defence mounted by VW as “specious”, “hopeless” and “absurd” and concluded that the existence of the defeat device software was a “fundamental subversion” of the emissions tests.
What will happen next?
We don’t know what VW’s next steps will be, but it’s possible that they will look to appeal this decision. The fact that the English High Court considers itself bound by the German Regulator’s decision has significant implications for VW in litigation its facing across the EU. This is particularly so when VW is still so adamant, based on its public statements, that it has done nothing wrong.
The Court’s finding that the software is a defeat device confirms that your claim is on a solid legal foundation as we approach the next potential phase of the litigation: to establish that VW deceived each of its customers and that they deserve to be properly compensated for that wrongdoing.
It’s time for VW to Settle
In our view, VW’s continued denial of its liability to its UK customers and refusal to offer adequate compensation is, to adopt language used by the Judge, absurd. That view is only reinforced by the comprehensiveness of our victory in the Preliminary Issues trial.
We intend to immediately press VW to engage constructively and urgently in a dialogue to resolve this claim and deliver proper compensation to its impacted customers. We’ll be making those calls publicly and through the court process. However, as I’m sure you will appreciate, only VW can pay compensation and settlement can only be achieved with their agreement.
Given that we don’t know how VW will react, we’ll be forced to continue to advance the litigation for now.
We shall keep you informed as to any decision by VW to appeal the Judgment and whether that appeal is allowed to go ahead, but in the meantime, if you’re keen to read all 97 pages of the Judge’s decision, you can find a copy here. The Judge has also produced a shorter summary of the Judgment which you can find here. We’ll also let you know, if a settlement dialogue is commenced and if alternative steps in the litigation are taken.
I would like to take this opportunity to pass on my thanks to the counsel team, Oliver Campbell QC, Tom de la Mare QC, Adam Heppinstall, Rachel Tandy and Gareth Shires, as well as Alicia Thompson and Kiran Sharma at Slater and Gordon for all their hard work in achieving such a resounding victory.
Kind regards
Gareth Pope
Principal Lawyer
Slater and Gordon"
Full judgement here: https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/320/26288/VWJudgment.pd...
Summary here: https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/020/48599/VWJudgmentSum...
xjay1337 said:
I owned one of the affected cars.
Unless I'm going to get £5000 I don't care
Not part of the class action then?Unless I'm going to get £5000 I don't care
I'd reckon on £5,000 - £10,000 each, following the USA settlement: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emis...
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff