{"id":258867,"date":"2025-07-17T08:24:48","date_gmt":"2025-07-17T08:24:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=258867"},"modified":"2025-07-17T08:24:48","modified_gmt":"2025-07-17T08:24:48","slug":"court-of-session-grants-permission-for-volvo-diesel-emissions-group-litigation-to-proceed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/court-of-session-grants-permission-for-volvo-diesel-emissions-group-litigation-to-proceed\/","title":{"rendered":"Court of Session grants permission for Volvo diesel emissions group litigation to proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

Paul Bell authorised as representative party despite challenges over competence and funding.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul Bell authorised as representative party despite challenges over competence and funding.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Scottish Court of Session has authorised a firefighter to act as the representative party in group proceedings<\/a> against Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Car UK, Lex Autolease and Santander Consumer over alleged unlawful diesel emissions practices. Handing down his opinion yesterday (15 July), Lord Sandison rejected a catalogue of objections from the four respondents and granted both authorisation and permission to Paul Bell to bring proceedings under the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018.<\/p>\n

THE BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The proposed litigation concerns the alleged installation of unlawful defeat devices in Volvo diesel vehicles certified to Euro 5 and Euro 6 emissions standards. These devices are claimed to suppress nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions during test conditions but allow higher emissions during normal use, in breach of EU and UK regulations. Mr Bell alleges that purchasers, lessees and financers of affected vehicles suffered loss as a result.<\/p>\n

The first and second respondents \u2013 the Volvo companies \u2013 are alleged to have designed and sold the affected vehicles while misrepresenting their compliance. The third and fourth respondents \u2013 Lex Autolease and Santander Consumer \u2014 are accused of financing sales or leases of non-compliant vehicles in breach of contractual and consumer protection<\/a> obligations. The Volvo companies and Santander opposed both applications, while Lex Autolease remained neutral on authorisation but came out firmly against group proceedings.<\/p>\n

SUITABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVE PARTY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The principal objections to Mr Bell\u2019s appointment as a representative party focused on his lack of litigation experience, the absence of personal financial resources to meet adverse costs and questions over the adequacy of third-party litigation funding by Quantum Claims.<\/p>\n

Robert Milligan KC, for Mr Bell, acknowledged that his client \u2013 a firefighter with experience of only one prior personal injury case \u2013 lacked special expertise but maintained that suitability under the Rules of the Court of Session required only that he be able to advance the action fairly and efficiently. The applicant\u2019s competence was said to derive from his legal team and the structure of the group litigation framework.<\/p>\n

The respondents contended that Mr Bell was essentially a \u201ccipher\u201d for solicitors and funders, without adequate knowledge or control over the litigation. Concerns were also raised about the solvency and contingent liabilities of Quantum Claims, which had pledged to indemnify Bell and group members but had limited financial disclosures and was involved in several similar diesel emissions cases. However, Lord Sandison, applying guidance from the Inner House in Mackay v Nissan Motor Co<\/em> [2025] and Milligan v Jaguar Land Rover<\/em> [2025], held that the bar for authorisation was intentionally low to promote access to justice. He therefore concluded that Mr Bell\u2019s personal interest in the litigation, independence from the respondents, and willingness to act fairly and adequately in conjunction with legal advisers were sufficient for him to be authorised as the representative party. Further, the involvement of experienced \u201cagents and counsel\u201d assured the applicant\u2019s ability to discharge his responsibilities.<\/p>\n

Lord Sandison ruled: \u201cThere are no countervailing considerations. Bearing in mind that the bar to being deemed suitable is a low one […] I am satisfied of the applicant\u2019s suitability in all the circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

PERMISSION FOR GROUP PROCEEDINGS<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The court also granted permission to bring group proceedings, finding that all four conditions under the Rules of the Court of Session were met, with Lord Sandison accepting that the claims \u2013 although not identical in every respect \u2013 raised sufficiently \u201csimilar or related\u201d issues, including the central question of whether the vehicles were actually fitted with the unlawful defeat devices. Noting the number of potential claimants and the inefficiency of separate actions, he observed that \u201cthe advantages (if any) of requiring any disaggregation of claims at this point seem more illusory than real\u201d.<\/p>\n

On the question of a prima facie<\/em> case and the real prospect of success, the court reaffirmed the low threshold set in Mackay<\/em>. Despite criticisms of the draft summons \u2013 including jurisdictional uncertainties, weak averments of loss and allegations of joint liability across parties with different legal relationships \u2013 Lord Sandison held that it was not appropriate to conduct a detailed merits analysis at this preliminary stage. He found that the draft pleadings disclosed at least an arguable case, bolstered by evidence of Volvo\u2019s own admissions to EU regulators. While the judge accepted that some aspects of the case appeared less objectively justifiable than in other emissions cases, notably due to the absence of regulatory recalls, he nonetheless concluded that the claims were not \u201centirely speculative or fanciful\u201d and thus met the statutory test.<\/p>\n

This decision places Scotland alongside England and Wales, the Netherlands and Germany in greenlighting collective proceedings against Volvo, and places Volvo alongside Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover and Stellantis (Fiat\/Chrysler\/Jeep) in having group proceedings certified by a Scottish court.<\/p>\n

THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In Bell (applicant) v Volvo, Lex Autolease and Santander Consumer (respondents), <\/em>the applicant was represented by Robert Milligan KC of Compass Chambers, instructed by Jones Whyte.<\/p>\n

Volvo was represented by Ross Anderson of Ampersand Associates, instructed by DLA Piper. Lex Autolease and Santander were represented by Paul O\u2019Brien KC of Axiom Advocates, instructed by DWF and DLA Piper, respectively.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n