| “It is a truth universally acknowledged that diesel vehicle engines produce a range of polluting emissions,” began Lady Justice Sara Cockerill last week in an epic judgment on a mass legal claim against several of the world’s biggest carmakers.
But for the claimant lawyers and litigation funders bankrolling the case, which is among the biggest and most complex in English legal history, the judge’s 369-page tome had no Jane Austen-style happy ending.
The High Court in London rejected the bulk of allegations made on behalf of about 1.6mn motorists in the UK who sued manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Peugeot/Citroën, Renault and Nissan, claiming they cheated on emissions tests.
The judge did not close the door entirely on all claims in the high-mileage litigation. In her technical, albeit highly significant, ruling, Cockerill made “adverse findings in relation to certain specific strategies”, including by Peugeot/Citroën.
However, unless her decision is successfully appealed, it is likely to mean the large majority of diesel vehicle owners who signed up for the no-win-no-fee legal action receive no compensation.
It is a blow to claimant law firms and their financial backers, for whom the case is among the most important in a new breed of mass litigation targeting big companies through the English courts. Others include a pollution lawsuit against Shell, in which there was a pre-trial hearing this week, as well as an asbestos claim against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, with a hearing next week.
The diesel emissions case has attracted several major players in litigation funding. Lead firm Leigh Day alone received funding from the likes of Benchwalk, Balance, Northwall, Asertis and Harbour, though there were also about 20 or so other law firms acting for the claimants.
They include Pogust Goodhead, which on the eve of the mega-trial last year relinquished its role as a lead firm on the case after its co-founder Tom Goodhead was abruptly ousted by its US hedge fund backer, Gramercy.
Financial backers of the litigation now face being on the hook for an eye-watering legal bill. Renault has already announced it will “pursue the recovery of its legal costs from the large institutional insurers and hedge funds [that] backed these claims in the hope of a financial gain”.
Yet with so much at stake, claimant firms are expected to appeal, not least because the judgment diverges from EU case law. Mercedes-Benz and Stellantis, which owns the Peugeot and Citroën brands, also said they were considering an appeal on the (relatively narrow) points they did lose on. The finish line remains miles out of sight, though as Elizabeth Bennet said in Pride and Prejudice: “The distance is nothing, when one has a motive.” Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service had “no viable basis in law or fact” and was brought for the “improper purpose” of legitimising a legally dubious deal, a US judge ruled this week. In a withering 56-page decision, Judge Kathleen Williams cast Trump’s $10bn complaint over his leaked tax information as an act of self-dealing that was filed in “bad faith” against a federal agency he oversees as US president. It is the latest example of the courts impugning the motives of the president and his administration.
 <img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/t/2/51977/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/1317667325318082/0/0'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51977/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/1317667325318082?pid=1'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51977/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/1317667325318082?pid=2'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51977/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/1317667325318082?pid=3'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51977/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/1317667325318082?pid=4'> |  |
 <img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/t/2/51978/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/3610879548833422/0/0'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51978/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/3610879548833422?pid=1'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51978/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/3610879548833422?pid=2'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51978/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/3610879548833422?pid=3'><img width='1' height='1' style='display:none;border-style:none;' alt=' src='https://images.passendo.com/extt/2/51978/mmoynihan@perkinscoie.com/3610879548833422?pid=4'> |  |
A Full Disclosure reader asks, “I manage a small team of junior paralegals who are very keen and hard-working, although one of them is producing work that doesn’t meet the standards of the firm. Simple spelling mistakes in documents I ask them to prepare and basic errors in research — things like that. How can I deliver constructive feedback to them without spoiling our working relationship and hurting their confidence?” “Most people would rather receive clear feedback than be left wondering how they are doing. The key is to focus on the work, not the person. Then make it clear that your aim is to help them develop, not catch them out. Start by recognising what they are doing well. Then be specific about what needs to change: ‘I’ve noticed recurring spelling mistakes in documents and some errors in your research.’ Avoid vague comments such as ‘you need to be more careful’, which are much harder to act on. It also helps to explain why it matters. In legal documents, small errors can undermine confidence in the whole piece of work. Deliver the feedback calmly, privately and with curiosity. Ask what they think is contributing to the mistakes and then agree on some practical ways to improve, whether that is building in time for a final proofread, utilising internal AI or using a research checklist. When people know you are invested in their success, honest feedback is much easier to hear.” — Charlotte Andrews, executive coach, associate for parental coaching firm BlueSky and a former lawyer Got a question for our experts? Please get in touch at fulldisclosure@ft.com. Holland & Hart added David Chung as a partner in the firm’s environmental and natural resources practice in Washington, DC from Crowell & Moring. Morgan Lewis hired Heidi Manschreck as a partner in its trial and investigations team in Chicago from the US Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois. Norm Law added John Budetti as partner and co-head of global private capital funds. He previously ran a consultancy, M37 LegalTech Strategies, and before that worked at Paul Hastings and Kirkland & Ellis. Baker McKenzie hired Lindsay Clayton as a partner in its tax practice group in Washington, DC from the US Department of Justice. Winston Taylor added Clayton Thompson, Carrie Williamson and Jake Zolotorev as partners in Washington, DC, from DLA Piper. Gowling WLG hired partner Imogen Benson and senior counsel Rich Hughes to its real estate finance practice from TLT.
 | Freshfields culls partners after pay overhaul | | Dozens of partners at ‘magic circle’ law firm handed fewer equity points | |  | US court revives lawsuits linking painkiller Tylenol to autism | | Federal panel in New York finds trial judge wrongly excluded expert testimony in dismissing litigation | |  | Linklaters hires Fifa lawyers from Paul Weiss in US push | | Move by UK firm comes as top law firms seek to bolster sports practices | |  | Legal sector regulator in England and Wales has ‘lost its way’, review finds | | Report into Legal Services Board follows a number of high-profile law firm collapses in recent years | | | | | Is AI fluency the new billable hour? My colleagues Andrew Hill and Emma Jacobs report how London law firm Shoosmiths recently dangled a firm-wide £1mn bonus for staff to log 1mn prompts on Microsoft Copilot as part of a wider trend to encourage AI use. Naturally, the eager legal eagles smashed their target four months early, flooding the AI system with research and email drafts. But now Shoosmiths is emphasising “purposeful usage”. After all, we want lawyers to be efficient, not chatty. Using leader boards and embedding token use in performance reviews is “a really stupid way to do anything”, Jacob Lauritzen, chief technology officer of legal AI firm Legora, told the 20VC podcast last month. “Reward [staff] for being effective and efficient and having more output, not for necessarily using AI.” |
