Dispute Resolution analysis: The Managing Judges of the large GLO NOx emissions litigation have dismissed applications seeking the protection of documents used in open Court from use for collateral purposes and for information about the funding arrangements which the Claimants have in place in contemplation of a security for costs application.
Various Claimants v
What are the practical implications of this case?
This judgment offers guidance on two relatively unusual applications made in the course of a large group litigation involving claims into the emissions of vehicles brought against the manufacturers of those vehicles. It notes that when considering applications under CPR r.31.22, prohibiting the collateral use of documents disclosed and used in hearings in open court, the principles of open justice predominate and the Court will look for clear evidence justifying the making of such a restriction and even then will expect the application to be targeted at only those documents in respect of which restrictions are truly justified. In relation to applications under CPR r.25.14 for documentation relevant to a potential application against a non-party for security for costs, the Court rejected the contention that the power was confined to those in a direct contractual relationship with the parties to the litigation. It would be unjust to permit the power to be circumvented merely by the insertion of parties or contractual structures between the funder and the parties. However, the Court will be slow to exercise the power to order disclosure, particularly in circumstances where the progress of the litigation may render the need to seek security for costs redundant.
What was the background?
The judgment deals with issues arising in the ongoing NOx Emissions Group Litigation. This is group litigation brought by multiple claimants against various vehicle manufacturers concerning the emissions of the vehicles. It is a judgment by the two Managing Judges appointed by the President of the King's Bench Division and followed a five day CMC hearing involving a considerable number of legal representatives. Owing to the significant and noted cooperation between the parties, there were only two applications which involved propositions of law which required a reserved judgment. The first was an application brought by the
What did the court decide?
The application under CPR r.31.22 was dismissed. The applicable test was to be found in the judgment of the
Case details
-
Court:
- Judges: Mrs
Justice Cockerill DBE and MrJustice Constable - Date of judgment:
25 March 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Gatehouse Chambers
1 Lady
Gray's Inn
WC1X 8BS
Fax: 0207691 1234
E-mail: ashley.allen@gatehouselaw.co.uk
URL: gatehouselaw.co.uk/
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source