Transparency data

List of group litigation orders

Updated 23 April 2024

123. The Vauxhall NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 January 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Milberg London LLP, Third Floor, Sutton Yard, 65 Goswell Road, London, EC1V 7EN and Keller Postman UK Ltd, 81 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1DD

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22 are intended to identify the common or related issues of fact or law to assist in the management of the GLO and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

For the avoidance of doubt, the matters identified below are to be read in light of the allegations made in the Claimants’ Generic Particulars of Claim, relating to allegations about NOx emissions.

1. Presence of defeat devices:  Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of EC Regulation 2007/715 (the ‘Emissions Regulation’) (a) at the time of their manufacture, and/or (b) at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other finance agreement relating to the Subject Vehicles, and/or (c) during the relevant Claimant’s period of ownership or lease of the Subject Vehicle(s), including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the vehicles’ emission control systems.

The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any pleaded defeat device.

1. Justification: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices were or are not prohibited by reason of Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

2. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with a valid type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/ or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other relevant financial agreement, and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

3. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the German Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles were accurate and/or correct and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Contract: Whether each or any of the Fifth to Seventh Defendants acted in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by supplying the Subject Vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

5. CPUT:  Whether claimants have any right to redress against the Fifth to Seventh Defendants in relation to their acquisition of the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and if so, what redress the Court should give.

6. Deceit:  Whether any of the German Defendants and/or Vauxhall Defendants (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles (ii) with the intention that the Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce the Claimants; and (iv) whereby the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Other issues

1. Statutory duty: (a) Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of obligations under relevant EU emissions legislation, including the framework provisions in Regulation 2018/858 and its predecessor Directive 2007 /46; the Emissions Regulation; EC Regulation 2008/692; and its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and Regulation 2020/683 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

• Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of dependent or related domestic legislation governing emissions, type approval or lawfully putting vehicles on the market in the UK, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986; the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and its predecessor the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009; and the Road Traffic Act 1988 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

1. CCA:  Whether there was an unfair relationship (where the allegation is based on a failure to comply with the relevant NOx emission limits) between the Claimants who entered into a finance agreement with the Fifth Defendant in respect of any Subject Vehicle such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and if so, what remedy the Court should give.

2. Loss: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them entitled to. In particular:

• What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Subject Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment?

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Subject Vehicle agreement or reject their Subject Vehicle?

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/ or compensation and, if so, in what amount?

• Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages, and, if so, in what amount?

• Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages, and, if so, in what amount?

• How far, if at all, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation?

1. Unlawful means conspiracy: Whether the German Defendants and/or Vauxhall Defendants conspired to defraud the Claimant by unlawful means, specifically in respect of allegedly designing, manufacturing and installing prohibited defeat devices, concealing their presence from regulators, and issuing Certificates of Conformity for Subject Vehicles.

2. Limitation: Whether any of the claims are time barred or otherwise statute-barred and, if so, to what extent.

122. The Hyundai/Kia NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 14 February 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22(2)(b) are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist in the management of the GLO, and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues (the “GLO Issues”) will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

Issues relating to manufacture/original sale

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of EC Regulation 715/2007 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement or other acquisition and/or at any time or times thereafter, including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the vehicles’ emissions control systems (“Updates”). If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them.

The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

1. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

2. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles are accurate and/or valid and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

3. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with an accurate and/or correct type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement, or other acquisition and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Contract: Whether each or any of the relevant Defendants were in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and/or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by reason of supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

5. Statutory guarantee: Whether the relevant Defendants were in breach of any guarantee they issued with respect to any of the Subject Vehicles by reason of supplying Subject Vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

6. CPUT: Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by section 2 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) (“CPUT”) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of CPUT.

7. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles; (ii) with the intention that Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Issues arising out of recalls and Updates applied

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of the Emissions Regulation following any Updates. If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

1. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

2. Certificates of conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles ceased to be accurate and/or correct upon carrying out of the Updates and, if so, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

3. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles conformed to their type approval after the application of Updates and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any Updates; (ii) with the intention that Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Other issues

1. Statutory duty:  Whether, by supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices, the Manufacturing Defendants have breached any of their statutory duties including but not limited to those under the:

• Relevant EU emissions legislation including the framework provisions in Regulation (EU) 2018/858, and its predecessor Directive 2007/46/EC, the Emissions Regulation, EC Regulation 692/2008 (the “Testing Regulation”), and/or its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (the “New Testing Regulation”) and Regulation (EU) 2020/683.

• Relevant provisions of domestic legislation, as read with Directive 2007/46/EC, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and the Road Traffic Act 1988; and

• Whether, as a matter of law, any such breaches give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty, or a sui generis tort.

1. CCA: To the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device, whether there was an unfair relationship between each or any of the Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the Finance Defendant in respect of the Subject Vehicles such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”).

2. Breach of collateral warranty and/or breach of statutory guarantee: Whether there was a breach of collateral manufacturer warranties between the relevant Defendants and the Claimants, entered into expressly (including through the relevant Defendants’ manuals and materials) or impliedly or by operation of section 30 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and/or Regulation 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002/3045 as to the performance, emissions, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, value, image, ownership prestige, satisfactory quality, compliance with description and environmental impact of the vehicles.

3. Loss and remedies: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them entitled to. In particular:

• What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Subject Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment.

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Subject Vehicle agreement or reject their Subject Vehicle.

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/or compensation and, if so, in what amount.

• Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the relevant pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages and, if so, in what amount.

• Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages and, if so, in what amount.

• How far, if any, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation.

1. Limitation: Whether any of the Claims are time-barred.

121. The Volvo NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 January 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22 are intended to identify the common or related issues of fact or law to assist in the management of the GLO, and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues will be likely to require revision and review as the litigation progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission or concession by reason of the matters set out below.

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether at any material time each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained one or more element[s] of design which amounted to a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation 2007/715 (the “Emissions Regulation”).

The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained a defeat device.

1. Justification: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices were or are not prohibited by Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

2. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the Certificates of Conformity  in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles have been accurate and/or correct and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

3. Type Approval: Whether at all material times the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with an accurate and/or valid type approval and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Statutory duty: Whether as a matter of law:

• Any pleaded breaches of obligations under relevant EU emissions legislation, including the framework provisions in Regulation 2018/858 and its predecessor Directive 2007/46; the Emissions Regulation; EC Regulation 2008/692; and its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and Regulation 2020/683 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty; and/or

• any pleaded breaches of dependent or related domestic legislation governing emissions, type approval or lawfully putting vehicles on the market in the UK, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009 and its successor, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020, and the Road Traffic Act 1988, as read with Directive 2007/46, give rise to actionable claims in damages as a breach of statutory duty, and in each case, if so, whether the Manufacturer Defendant committed any such breaches and whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

1. Deceit: Whether the First and/or Second Defendants (whether directly or through regulators and/or agents/intermediaries/publications) (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to the Subject Vehicles, as particularised in the GPOC, (ii) with the intention that each or any of the Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

2. Contract: Whether the Second Defendant, Finance Defendants and/or the Authorised Dealerships acted in breach of contract of any implied term of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and/or terms relating to the description of goods, imposed under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as particularised in the GPOC), in  contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

3. CPUT 2008: Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by s.2 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, “CPUT”) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of CPUT and, if so, what redress the Court should give.

4. Limitation: Whether any of the Claims are time barred and if so to what extent.

5. Loss/Remedies: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered and to what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them entitled.

120. The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 January 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day, 27 Goswell Road, Barbican, London EC1M 7AJ and PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR r19.22 are intended to identify the common or related issues of fact or law to assist in the management of the GLO and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues are likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

1. Defeat devices: Whether any of the Relevant Vehicles: - as manufactured - by reason of software updates subsequently installed, contained a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.

2. Exceptions: If the Relevant Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of any of the derogations found in Article 5(2) of the Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 in the manner alleged.

3. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the Certificates of Conformity issued by any of the First to Fifth Defendants in respect of each or any of the Relevant Vehicles are truthful and/or correct.

4. Type Approval:  Whether each or  any  of  the  Relevant  Vehicles:  (i)  were manufactured in conformity with the Type Approval granted for that vehicle with its material attributes; and/or (ii) conformed to such Type Approval after application of the updates.

5. Contract (implied terms):  Whether the Sixth  Defendant  or  any  Authorised Dealership was in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and/or terms relating to the description of goods in contracts with the Claimants for the supply of the Relevant Vehicles.

6. Contract (guarantees):  Whether any of  the  First  to  Fifth,  Seventh  or  Eighth Defendants were in breach of any guarantee provided to the Claimants in respect of the Relevant Vehicles.

7. CPUT: Whether any of the Claimants who were consumers have any right to redress in relation to the Relevant Vehicles under Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

8. Deceit: Whether any of the First to Fifth Defendants knowingly or recklessly made false representations in relation to:

• the Relevant Vehicles as manufactured; or
• software updates subsequently installed, with the intention of deceiving Claimants, and which representations induced those Claimants and caused them to suffer loss.

1. Statutory Duty: Whether any of the First to Fifth Defendants breached:

• Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, Regulation (EC) No 692/2008, or Regulation (EU) 2018/858; and/or
• Sections 42 and/or 75 of the RTA 1988 (where the alleged contravention of the construction and use requirement is a breach of Regulation 61A of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986) and/or the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009 or 2020, and if so whether any such breach gives rise to an actionable claim in damages by the Claimants as a breach of statutory duty.

1. CCA: Whether there was an unfair relationship between Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the Sixth Defendant in respect of the Relevant Vehicles, such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

2. Competition: Whether any of the First to Eighth Defendants, breached any statutory duty under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as read with s.2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972) and/or Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998 by participating in any pleaded cartel arrangements, and whether any such participation resulted in the installation of a prohibited defeat device in any Relevant Vehicle.

3. Loss and remedies: Whether Claimants have suffered any recoverable loss, or have any right to a remedy, in respect of any cause of action above.

119. Order the Mazda NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 14 February 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR r19.22 are intended to identify the common or related issues of fact or law to assist in the management of the GLO and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues are likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

Issues relating to manufacture/original sale

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of EC Regulation 715/2007 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement or other acquisition and/or at any time or times thereafter, including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the vehicles’ emissions control systems (“Updates”). If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them.

2. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any pleaded defeat device.

3. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in Article 5(2) Emissions Regulation.

4. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles were accurate and/or correct and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

5. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with an accurate and/or correct type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement, or other acquisition and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

6. Contract: Whether each or any of the Finance Defendant and/or Authorised Dealership Defendants were in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by reason of supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

7. Statutory guarantee: Whether the Manufacturer Defendants were in breach of any guarantee they issued with respect to any of the Subject Vehicles by reason of supplying Subject Vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

8. CPUT: Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by section 2 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) (“CPUT”) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of CPUT, and if so, what redress the Court should give.

9. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles; (ii) with the intention that the Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Other issues

1. Statutory duty: Whether, as a matter of law, any pleaded breaches of obligations under:

• Relevant EU emissions legislation including the framework provisions in Regulation (EU) 2018/858, and its predecessor Directive 2007/46/EC, the Emissions Regulation, EC Regulation 692/2008 (the “Testing Regulation”), and/or its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (the “New Testing Regulation”) and Regulation (EU) 2020/683 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of duty.

• Whether, as a matter of law, any pleaded breaches of dependent or related domestic legislation governing emissions, type approval or lawfully putting vehicles on the market in the UK including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

1. Breach of collateral warranty and/or breach of statutory guarantee: Whether there was a breach of collateral manufacturer warranties between the Defendants and the Claimants, entered into expressly (including through Mazda’s manuals and materials) or impliedly or by operation of section 30 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and/or Regulation 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002/3045 as to the performance, emissions, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, value, image, ownership prestige, satisfactory quality, compliance with description and environmental impact of the vehicles.

2. Loss: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them entitled to. In particular:

• What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Subject Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment?

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Subject Vehicle agreement or reject their Subject Vehicle?

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/or compensation and, if so, in what amount?

• Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the relevant pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages and, if so, in what amount?

• Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages and, if so, in what amount?

• How far, if at all, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation?

1. Limitation: Whether any of the claims are time-barred or otherwise statute-barred and, if so, to what extent.

118. The Toyato NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 14 February 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

1. The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22(2)(b) are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist in the management of the GLO, and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings, once provided. These GLO issues (the “GLO Issues”) will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

Issues relating to manufacture/original sale

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of EC Regulation 715/2007 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement or other acquisition and/or at any time or times thereafter, including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the vehicles’ emissions control systems (“Updates”). If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them.

2. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

3. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

4. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles are accurate and/or valid and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

5. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with an accurate and/or correct type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement, or other acquisition and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

6. Contract: Whether each or any of the Defendants were in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by reason of supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

7. Statutory guarantee: Whether the Manufacturer Defendants were in breach of any guarantee they issued with respect to any of the Subject Vehicles by reason of supplying Subject Vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

8. CPUT: Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by section 2 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) (“CPUT”) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of CPUT.

9. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles; (ii) with the intention that Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Issues arising out of recalls and Updates applied

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of the Emissions Regulation following any Updates. If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

2. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

3. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

4. Certificates of conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles ceased to be accurate and/or correct upon carrying out of the Updates and, if so, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

5. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles conformed to their type approval after the application of Updates and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

6. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any Updates; (ii) with the intention that Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Other issues

1. Statutory duty: Whether, by supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices, the Manufacturer Defendants have breached any of their statutory duties including but not limited to those under the:

• Relevant EU emissions legislation including the framework provisions in Regulation (EU) 2018/858, and its predecessor Directive 2007/46/EC, the Emissions Regulation, EC Regulation 692/2008 (the “Testing Regulation”), and/or its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (the “New Testing Regulation”) and Regulation (EU) 2020/683.

• Relevant provisions of domestic legislation, as read with Directive 2007/46/EC, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and the Road Traffic Act 1988

• Whether, as a matter of law, any such breaches give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty, or a sui generis tort.

1. CCA: To the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device, whether there was an unfair relationship between each or any of the Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the Finance Defendant in respect of the Subject Vehicles such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”).

2. Breach of collateral warranty and/or breach of statutory guarantee: Whether there was a breach of collateral manufacturer warranties between the Defendants and the Claimants, entered into expressly (including through Toyota’s manuals and materials) or impliedly or by operation of section 30 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and/or Regulation 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002/3045 as to the performance, emissions, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, value, image, ownership prestige, satisfactory quality, compliance with description and environmental impact of the vehicles.

3. Loss and Remedies: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them entitled to. In particular:

• What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Subject Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment.

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Subject Vehicle agreement or reject their Subject Vehicle.

• Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/or compensation and, if so, in what amount.

• Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the relevant pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages and, if so, in what amount.

• Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages and, if so, in what amount.

• How far, if any, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation.

1. Limitation: Whether any of the claims are time-barred or otherwise statute-barred and if so, to what extent.

117. The Peugot/Citroen/DS NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 January 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB and PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

1. The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22(2)(b) are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist in the management of the GLO and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

2. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Affected Vehicles contained any of the alleged  defeat devices within the meaning of article 3(10) of EC Regulation 2007/715 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at (a) the time the time of their manufacture, and/or (b) at the time of each Claimants’ purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other financial agreement relating to the Affected Vehicles, and/or (c) during the relevant Claimant’s period of ownership or lease of the Subject Vehicle(s), including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the Affected Vehicle’s emission control systems. (“Updates”).

3. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Affected Vehicles are found to have contained any pleaded defeat device.

4. Justification: If the Affected Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices were or are justified by reason of Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

5. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Second and/or Third Defendants in respect of each or any of the Affected Vehicles were accurate and/or correct and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

6. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Affected Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with a valid type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, or other relevant financial agreement, and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

7. Contract: Whether the Finance Defendants and/or the Seventh Defendant and/or the Authorised Dealerships acted in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and/or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Affected Vehicles, by supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

8. CPUT:  Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by Section 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) have any right to redress in relation to the Affected Vehicles under Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and, if so, what redress the Court should give.

9. Deceit:  Whether the First to Seventh Defendants (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles (ii) with the intention that each or any of the Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each

10. Statutory duty:

a. Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of obligations under relevant EU emissions legislation, including the framework provisions in Regulation 2018/858 and its predecessor Directive 2007/46; the Emissions Regulation; EC Regulation 2008/692; and its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and Regulation 2020/683 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

b. Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of dependent or related domestic legislation governing emissions, type approval or lawfully putting vehicles on the market in the UK, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986; the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and its predecessor the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009; and the Road Traffic Act 1988 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

1. CCA:  Whether there was an unfair relationship between Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the Finance Defendants in respect of the Affected Vehicles such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and if so, what remedy the Court should order.

2. Loss: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them are entitled to. In particular:

3. What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Affected Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment?

4. Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Affected Vehicle agreement or reject their Affected Vehicle?

5. Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/or compensation and, if so, in what amount?

6. Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages, and, if so, in what amount?

7. Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages, and, if so, in what amount?

8. How far, if at all, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation?

9. Whether any of the claims are time-barred or otherwise statute-barred and, if so, to what extent.

116. Essure Group Litigation

Date of Order: 8 September 2023

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL.

Managing Court:  the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.11 are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist the management of the GLO. These issues are likely to require revision and review as the litigation progresses.

1 . The correct approach in law to the determination of defect under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (“CPA”).

2 . Whether Essure Devices were defective within the meaning of s.3 of the CPA?

3 . If so, are the First and/or Second Defendants able to avail themselves of any of the defences set out in section 4 of the CPA?

4 . Whether the First and/or Second Defendants were negligent in the distribution of the relevant Essure Devices?

5 . At all material times, did the First and/or Second Defendant owe the Claimants a common law duty of care? If so, what was the nature of the duty and was it breached?

6 . Whether any claims are statute-barred and, if so, whether limitation should be disapplied in accordance with section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980?

7 . Whether any proven loss and damage was caused wholly or partly by any proven defect and/or negligence on the part of the First and/or Second Defendant?

115. The BMW NOx Diesel Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 2 November 2023

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL.

Managing Court:  the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane,

London EC1M 4LB and PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining Issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22(2)(b) are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist in the management of the GLO and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues (the “GLO Issues”) will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of article 3(10) of EC Regulation 2007/715 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at (a) the time of their manufacture, and/or (b) at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other finance agreement relating to the Subject Vehicles, and/or (c) during the relevant Claimant’s period of ownership or lease of the Subject Vehicle(s), including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the vehicles’ emission control systems. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any pleaded defeat device. 

2. Justification: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices were or are not prohibited by reason of Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

3. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the First Defendant in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles were accurate and/or correct and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with a valid type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other relevant financial agreement, and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

5. Contract: Whether the Finance Defendants and/or the Dealership Defendants acted in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and/or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

6. CPUT: Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by Section 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and, if so, what redress the Court should give.

7. Deceit: Whether the First and/or Third Defendants (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles (ii) with the intention that each or any of the Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

8. Statutory duty: a. Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of obligations under relevant EU emissions legislation, including the framework provisions in Regulation 2018/858 and its predecessor Directive 2007/46; the Emissions Regulation; EC Regulation 2008/692; and its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and Regulation 2020/683 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty. b. Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of dependent or related domestic legislation governing emissions, type approval or lawfully putting vehicles on the market in the UK, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986; the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and its predecessor the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009; and the Road Traffic Act 1988 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

9. CCA: Whether there was an unfair relationship between Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the Finance Defendants in respect of the Subject Vehicles such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and, if so, what remedy the Court should order.

10. Competition: Whether in addition to the First Defendant’s breach of Article 101(1) TFEU, as found by the Commission in its Decision C(2021) 4955, in case AT.40178, dated 8 July 2021, all or any of the Defendants participated (directly or indirectly) in any pleaded breach of Article 101(1) TFEU and/or Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998; and whether any of BMW (UK) Limited, BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited, Alphabet (GB) Limited, and/or Park Lane Limited participated in any pleaded breach of those provisions at all, and whether any such participation resulted in the installation of a prohibited defeat device in any Subject Vehicle.

11. Loss: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them are entitled to.  In particular: a. What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Subject Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment? b. Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Subject Vehicle agreement or reject their Subject Vehicle? c. Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/or compensation and, if so, in what amount? d. Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages, and, if so, in what amount? e. Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages, and, if so, in what amount? f. How far, if at all, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation?

12. Limitation: Whether any of the claims are time-barred or otherwise statute-barred and, if so, to what extent.

114. Nissan/Renault Diesel NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 January 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL.

Managing Court:  the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB and PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining issues

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22(2)(b) are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist in the management of the GLO, and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues (the “GLO Issues”) will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

Issues relating to manufacture/original sale

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of EC Regulation 715/2007 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement or other acquisition and/or at any time or times thereafter, including following any software updates or technical measures being applied to the vehicles’ emissions control systems (“Updates”). If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

2. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

3. Certificates of Conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles are accurate and/or valid and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with an accurate and/or correct type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan, other relevant financial agreement, or other acquisition and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

5. Contract: Whether each or any of the Defendants were in breach of any implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by reason of supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

6. Statutory guarantee: Whether the Nissan Defendants or Renault Defendants were in breach of any guarantee they issued with respect to any of the Subject Vehicles by reason of supplying Subject Vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

7. CPUT: Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by section 2 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) (“CPUT”) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of CPUT.

8. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles; (ii) with the intention that Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Issues arising out of the recalls and Updates applied

1. Presence of defeat devices: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of the Emissions Regulation following any Updates. If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Subject Vehicles contained them. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device. The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Relevant Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device.

2. Exceptions: If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are justified by reason of the derogations found in article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

3. Certificates of conformity: Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Manufacturer Defendants in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles ceased to be accurate and/or correct upon carrying out of the Updates and, if so, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles conformed to their type approval after the application of Updates and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

5. Deceit: Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants: (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any Updates; (ii) with the intention that Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

Other issues

1. Statutory duty:  Whether, by supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices, the Manufacturing Defendants have breached any of their statutory duties including but not limited to those under the:

a. Relevant EU emissions legislation including the framework provisions in Regulation (EU) 2018/858, and its predecessor Directive 2007/46/EC, the Emissions Regulation, EC Regulation 692/2008 (the “Testing Regulation”), and/or its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (the “New Testing Regulation”) and Regulation (EU) 2020/683.

b. Relevant provisions of domestic legislation, as read with Directive 2007/46/EC, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and the Road Traffic Act 1988; and

c. Whether, as a matter of law, any such breaches give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty, or a sui generis tort.

1. CCA: To the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any defeat device, whether there was an unfair relationship between each or any of the Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the Finance Defendant in respect of the Subject Vehicles such that a remedy ought to be ordered under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”).

2. Breach of collateral warranty and/or breach of statutory guarantee: Whether there was a breach of collateral manufacturer warranties between the Defendants and the Claimants, entered into expressly (including through Nissan and/or Renault’s manuals and materials) or impliedly or by operation of section 30 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and/or Regulation 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002/3045 as to the performance, emissions, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, value, image, ownership prestige, satisfactory quality, compliance with description and environmental impact of the vehicles.

3. Loss and remedies: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them entitled to. In particular:

a. What is the difference, if any, between the value of the Claimants’ interests in their Subject Vehicles with and without any identified prohibited defeat devices; and what is the relevant time of assessment.

b. Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to rescind their Subject Vehicle agreement or reject their Subject Vehicle.

c. Are any of the consumer Claimants entitled to a reduction in purchase price or discount on payments and/or compensation and, if so, in what amount.

d. Have any of the Claimants incurred additional costs by reason of any of the relevant pleaded breaches and, if so, are the additional costs recoverable as damages and, if so, in what amount.

e. Are any of the Claimants entitled to damages and/or compensation for distress and disappointment, exemplary and/or aggravated damages and, if so, in what amount.

f. How far, if any, should any Claimant’s remedies, including the award of damages, be adjusted to prevent over-compensation.

113. Jaguar Land Rover NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 January 2024

Judge: TBC

Court: King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL.

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane,London EC1M 4LB and PGMBM Law Ltd t/a Pogust Goodhead (“Pogust Goodhead”) 70 Mark Lane, London EC3R 7NQ

Defining issues

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.22 are intended to identify the common or related issues of fact or law to assist in the management of the GLO, and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

1. Presence of defeat devices:  Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles contained any of the alleged defeat devices within the meaning of Article 3(10) of EC Regulation 2007/715 (the “Emissions Regulation”) at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other relevant financial agreement, or acquisition of interest by some other means. If so, what is the nature of any defeat devices identified and which Affected Vehicles contained them.

The remaining issues in this section only arise to the extent that any of the Subject Vehicles are found to have contained any pleaded defeat device.

1. Justification:  If the Subject Vehicles, or any of them, did contain such defeat devices, whether those defeat devices are not prohibited by reason of Article 5(2) of the Emissions Regulation.

2. Certificates of Conformity:  Whether the certificates of conformity issued by the Second Defendant in respect of each or any of the Subject Vehicles are accurate and/or correct and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

3. Type Approval: Whether each or any of the Subject Vehicles were manufactured in accordance with an accurate and/or valid type approval at the time the vehicle was manufactured and/or at the time of each Claimant’s purchase, hire purchase, lease, personal contract plan or other relevant financial agreement, or acquisition of interest by some other means, and, if not, whether any legal consequences result in respect of any of the Claimants’ claims.

4. Contract: Whether each or any of the Finance Defendants and/or Authorised Dealerships were in breach of the implied term of satisfactory quality and/or terms relating to the description of goods imposed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as appropriate), in contracts with the Claimants relating to the Subject Vehicles, by reason of supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

5. Statutory guarantees: Whether the Second Defendant was in breach of any guarantee it issued with respect to any of the Subject Vehicles by reason of supplying vehicles fitted with prohibited defeat devices.

6. CPUT:  Whether any of the consumer Claimants (as defined by s. 2 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (“CPUT”)) have any right to redress in relation to the Subject Vehicles under Part 4A of the CPUT and, if so, what redress the Court should give.

7. Deceit:  Whether any of the Manufacturer Defendants (i) knowingly, recklessly and/or dishonestly made false representations in relation to any of the Subject Vehicles; (ii) with the intention that each or any of the Claimants should be influenced or induced by those representations; (iii) which did influence or induce each or any of the Claimants; and (iv) whereby each or any of the Claimants suffered loss and/or damage.

8. Statutory duty: a. Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of obligations under relevant EU emissions legislation, including the framework provisions in Regulation 2018/858 and its predecessor Directive 2007/46; the Emissions Regulation; EC Regulation 2008/692; and its successor Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and Regulation 2020/683 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

b. Whether as a matter of law any pleaded breaches of dependent or related domestic legislation governing emissions, type approval or lawfully putting vehicles on the market in the UK, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986; the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 and its predecessor the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, and the Road Traffic Act 1988 give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty.

1. Loss: If any of the Defendants are found to be liable to any of the Claimants in respect of any of the causes of action above, what recoverable loss, if any, have any of the Claimants suffered, and what damages, relief or compensation, if any, are any of them are entitled to.

2. Limitation: Whether any of the claims are time-barred or otherwise statute-barred and, if so, to what extent.

112. The Bille and Ogale Group Litigation

Date of Order: 31 May 2022

Judge: Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE

Court: High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court

Managing Court: the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England & Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day, Panagram, 27 Goswell Road, Barbican, London, EC1M 7AJ

Defining issues

This Order applies to the following claims:

a. all claims brought against both of the Defendants in claim number HT-2015-000430 (the “Bille Individual Claims”) and in claim number HT-2017-000022 (“the Bille Community Claim”) (together the “Bille Claims”) concerning alleged loss and damage arising from pollution from oil spills from the Defendants’ oil pipelines and associated infrastructure in the Bille Community (the “Bille Pipelines and Infrastructure”); and

b. all claims brought against both of the Defendants in claim number HT-2015-000241 (the “Ogale Community Claim”) and in claim number HT-2016-000147 and by such other individuals who may issue and serve claims against the Defendants and be added to the Ogale Group Register (the “Ogale Individual Claims”) (together the “Ogale Claims”) concerning alleged loss and damage arising from pollution from oil spills from the Defendants’ oil pipelines and associated infrastructure in and around the Ogale Community (the “Ogale Pipelines and Infrastructure”).

111. Port Talbot Steelworks Group Litigation

Date of Order: 3 March 2021

Judge: Mrs Justice Jefford

Court: The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Wales, Technology and Construction Court

Managing Court: The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Wales, Technology and Construction Court, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street, Cardiff CF10 1ET

Lead Solicitors: Hugh James of Two Central Square, Cardiff, CF10 1FS

Defining issues

(a) Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in public and/or private nuisance by reason of dust emissions as a result of the management or operation of the Port Talbot Steelworks, Margam, Port Talbot, West Glamorgan, SA13 2NG (“the Steelworks”) during the period 1 September 2008 to the date hereof and continuing:

(b) Whether there are contours around the Steelworks beyond which the Claimants’ allegations of:

(i) amenity nuisance; and

(ii) Physical damage to their properties

are unlikely to have been of such a degree as to constitute an actionable nuisance and if so, at what distances those contour lines should be drawn.

(c) Whether the Defendant, as the dominant owner, has acquired a potential right by prescription to deposit dust from the Defendant’s Steelworks onto the property of any Claimant (a servient owner) and, if so, (i) whether the exercise of such a right was and is lawful and (ii) whether any such unlawfulness prevented the acquisition of a right of prescription in respect of public and/or private nuisance

(d) Whether any of the claims are statute barred and, if so, to what extent.

(e) Whether or not any of the Claimants are entitled to injunctive relief and the terms on which any such relief should be granted and/or damages in lieu of injunction;

(f) The levels of damages which should be awarded to the Claimants if their claims are justified.

110. Arkwright In Vessel Composting Site Group Litigation

Date of Order: 17 August 2022

Judge: Mr Justice Eyre

Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Nottingham District Registry

Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, Nottingham District Registry, 60 Canal Street, Nottingham, NG1 7EJ

Lead Solicitors: Hugh James of Two Central Square, Cardiff, CF10 1FS

Defining Issues:

• Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in private nuisance by reason of odour emissions from the Arkwright In Vessel Composting facility, Deepsick Lane, Arkwright, Derbyshire, S44 5DN (“the Site”) during the period, or during periods within the period from 9th July 2014 to the date hereof and continuing;
• Whether or not odour emitted from the Site if any, has been of such a degree as to constitute an actionable private nuisance to the Claimants, and if so to constitute an actionable private nuisance to the Claimants during what period or periods within the overall period set out in paragraph 3(a) above;
• What are the (i) meteorological conditions, and (ii) distances in different directions from the Site, beyond which the Claimants’ complaints of odour emissions from the Site are unlikely to have constituted an actionable private nuisance;
• Whether or not any of the Claimants are entitled to injunctive relief and the terms on which any such relief should be granted;
• The levels of damages which should be awarded to the Claimants if their claims are proven.

109. The Nchanga Copper Mine Group Litigation

Date of Order: 16 March 2020
Judge: TBA
Court: The High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Leigh Day of Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, Farringdon, London EC1M 4LB and Hausfeld & Co LLP of 12 Gough Square, London EC4A 3DW

Defining Issues:

1. What is the correct interpretation of the principles of the law of negligence, nuisance and trespass which are relied upon in the claims in the Group Litigation Claims as a matter of Zambian law?
2. Whether the First and/or the Second Defendant owed the Claimants a duty of care at common law in respect of the conduct of mining and mineral processing operations relied on in the claims.
3. In the event that the First and/or Second Defendant is found to owe a duty of care to the Claimants, what is the applicable standard of care in respect of the conduct of the aspects of the mining and mineral processing operations relied on in the claims.
4. What is the correct interpretation and application, as a matter of Zambian law, of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
5. What is the correct interpretation, as a matter of law, of the provisions of Zambian statute law common to the claims?
6. Whether the First and/or the Second Defendant owed the Claimants a statutory duty under the provisions of Zambian statute law common to the Lungowe and Kasonde Claims in respect of the conduct of the aspects of the mining and mineral processing operations relied on in the claims.
7. In respect of the discharges that are relied upon in the claims, were the alleged discharges, or any of them, permissible under Zambian law having regard to relevant mining licences and regulatory requirements?
8. In respect of allegations of discharges which are common to the claims, did the First Defendant and/or the Second Defendant act in breach of the common law or statutory duties which are common to the claims?
9. Whether, as a matter of generic causation, any breach established (and relied on by the claimants) is capable of causing the types of environmental pollution and/or damage to property and/or the personal injuries alleged and/or any other damage or form of loss relied on by the claimants in their claims and provided for under Zambian statute.
10. What type of interest in property would a Claimant have to establish in order to be able to advance a claim in respect of property damage under Zambian law in respect of each cause of action relied on in the claims?
11. What heads of loss are recoverable under Zambian law in respect of any allegation of breach of common law or statutory rules or duties that may be established and which is common to the claims?
12. Are aggravated and/or exemplary and/or wayleave and/or negotiating damages recoverable in respect of any allegation of breach relied upon in the claims?
13. How is any recoverable head of loss to be quantified under Zambian law?
14. What are the relevant legal principles applicable to the Claimants’ claim for injunctive relief against the First and/or Second Defendant and/or damages in lieu against either or both of the Defendants?

15. In respect of each allegation of pollution that is relied upon:
    (a) Is the allegation made out?
    (b) What was the nature, extent and cause of the pollution?

16. In of each allegation of loss and damage that is relied upon:
    (a) Is the allegation made out?
    (b) Is causation established?

17. The assessment of quantum in respect of each recoverable head of loss which is established.

108. The British Coal Coke Oven Workers Litigation

Date of Order: 30 July 2015
Judge: TBA
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors of Two Central Square, Central Square, Cardiff, CF10 1FS; Irwin Mitchell LLP of Wellbar Central, 36 Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4TD

Defining Issues:

The “claims” are claims for damages and loss for personal injury (limited to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and/or Chronic Bronchitis (known together as “non-malignant respiratory disease”), Temporary Exacerbation of Asthma (“TEA’), Squamous Cell Skin Cancer and Lung Cancer) arising out of the employment of the workers named in the group register at various coke ovens owned and operated at various times by British Coal Corporation, Coal Products Limited and National Smokeless Fuels Limited.

107. The Phurnacite Workers Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 July 2009
Judge: Mrs Justice Swift
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors of Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY

Defining Issues:

This Order applies to claims in respect of the following common or related issues of fact or law namely the liability of the National Coal Board/British Coal Corporation/National Smokeless Fuels Limited/CoaI Products Limited for respiratory diseases and cancers suffered by former employees who worked at the Abercwmboi Phurnacite Works between 1947 and 1990. The determination of liability for such injuries will give rise to the following common or related issues of fact or law namely:

(i) whether exposure to dust and/or fume was negligent and/or in breach of statutory
(ii) the levels of exposure to dust and fume at the said works
(iii) the extent to which exposure to dust and/or fume should have been prevented by the employers
(iv) what types of fume were employees exposed to at the said works
(v) what was the potential for the different types of dust or fume at the said works to cause lung, bladder and skin cancers and to what extent were employees exposed to carcinogens
(vi) the appropriate levels of award of damages for the Claimants
(vii) Limitation:

(a) In relation to Claimants who fulfil the GLO criteria, what is their ‘date of knowledge’ for the purposes of s. 14 of the Limitation Act 1980? For the purposes of this issue, the Court will be invited to determine dates of knowledge across the cohort of registered claims with reference to the age, nature and type of such claims.
(b) In relation to Claimants whose primary limitation period for the purposes of s. 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 has expired, should the Court exercise its discretion to disapply the primary limitation period for the purposes of s. 33 of that Act? More specifically, what are the factors which should determine the exercise of the Court’s discretion in individual cases, having regard to the range and nature of the registered cases within the Group?

106. The British Airways Data Event Group Litigation

Date of Order: 4 October 2019
Judge: Mr Justice Warby
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (Media and Communications List), Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Excello Law Limited trading as SPG Law, 5 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1LG

Defining issues:

1. In this Order the following are defined terms:

   1.1. “Personal Data” means each Claimant’s name, billing address, email address, payment card number, payment card expiry date and CVV for the payment card, as supplied to the Defendant in connection with the making of payment by the Claimant in relation to a booking with the Defendant (whether such booking was for the Claimant, the Claimant and other persons or only for other persons).
   1.2. “Data Event” means the breaches of the Defendant’s systems, including systems containing Personal Data, which were notified by the Defendant to potentially affected customers in September and October 2018.
   1.3. “DPA 1998” means the Data Protection Act 1998.
   1.4. “DPA 2018” means the Data Protection Act 2018.
   1.5. “GDPR” means General Data Protection Regulation.
   1.6. “Defendant’s Website” means www.ba.com or www.britishairways.com
   1.7. “Standard Minimum Requirements” means the criteria set out in paragraph 30 of this Order.

2. This Order is made under Civil Procedure Rule 19.11 and applies to claims which (subject to sub-categorisation of the claims which may become necessary in the future) give rise to some or all of the following common or related issues of fact or law (the “GLO Issues”), the parties agreeing that the GLO Issues should be reconsidered after service of statements of case:
   2.1. Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants, or any of them, for potential damages under the English law of contract and/or pursuant to the DPA 1998 and/or the GDPR as supplemented by the DPA 2018 and/or misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence in English law arising from the Data Event, or any of them;
   2.2. If so, which Claimants are entitled to damages and on what basis?

105. The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation

Date of Order: 11 May 2018
Judge: TBC
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP of 50-52 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HL and Leigh Day of Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London E1M 4LB

Defining issues:

The matters set out below for the purposes of CPR 19.11 are intended to identify the high level GLO issues to assist in the management of the GLO, and are not intended as a substitute for particularised pleadings. These GLO issues will be likely to require revision and review as the matter progresses, including when pleadings are finalised. Accordingly, no party makes or is deemed to make any admission by reason of the matters set out below.

(1) Whether any of the 1st to 4th Defendants knowingly or recklessly made false representations in relation to vehicles manufactured with EA 189 engines affected by the NOx issue (“affected vehicles”), with the intention of deceiving Claimants, on which those Claimants relied and were caused to suffer loss.
(2) Whether there was any breach of the implied term of satisfactory quality in contracts relating to affected vehicles between Claimants and the 6th Defendant (VWFS), 7th Defendant (Inchcape), or any other Authorised Dealership.
(3) Whether Claimants have any right to redress in relation to affected vehicle under Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
(4) Whether there was an unfair relationship between Claimants who entered into finance agreements with the 6th Defendant (VWFS) in respect of affected vehicles such that a remedy ought to be ordered.
(5) Whether any of the 1st to 4th Defendants acted in breach of obligations under EC Regulation 715/2007 in relation to affected vehicles so as to give rise to an actionable claim in damages as a breach of statutory duty or a sui generis tort.
(6) Whether Claimants have suffered any recoverable loss in respect of any cause of action above.

104. The Omega Proteins Group Litigation

Date of Order: 19 January 2018
Judge: His Honour Judge Gosnell
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, Leeds Combined Court Centre, The Courthouse, 1 Oxford Row, Leeds, LS1 3BG
Managing Court: The High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, Leeds Combined Court Centre, The Courthouse, 1 Oxford Row, Leeds, LS1 3BG
Lead Solicitors: Hugh James LLP of Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff, CF10 1DY

Defining issues:

1. Whether or not the Erlings Works managed and operated by the First Defendant has been responsible for emissions of odours perceived by the Claimants at their homes

2. Whether or not the odours emitted from the Erlings Works, if any , have been of such a degree as to constitute an actionable nuisance

3. What the distances are in different directions from the Erlings Works beyond which the Claimants’ complaints of odour are unlikely to have constituted an actionable nuisance

4. Whether or not the First Defendant is liable in public nuisance for odours emitted from the Erlings Works and perceived by the Claimants at their homes

5. Whether or not the First or Second Defendant is liable to any of the Claimants by reason of the emissions of any odours from vehicles carrying animals or animal parts or products to or from the Erlings Works as they use the public highway, including any emissions of odours from spillages on to the highway, whether in private or public nuisance or in negligence or otherwise

6. Whether or not any of the Claimants are entitled to equitable including injunctive relief and the terms on which any such relief should be granted

7. The levels of damages which should be awarded to the Claimants if their claims are justified.

103. The Berkeley Burke SIPP Litigation

Date of Order: 23 January 2018
Judge: His Honour Judge Russen QC
Court: Circuit Commercial Court, Bristol District Registry, Bristol Civil Justice Centre, 2 Radcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
Managing Court: Circuit Commercial Court, Bristol District Registry, Bristol Civil Justice Centre, 2 Radcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR

Defining issues:

1. GLO issue 1: In carrying out the terms of the non-regulated introducer agreement, did the relevant introducer make “arrangements” within Article 25 of the Regulated Activities Order?
2. GLO issue 2: If issue 1 is answered in the affirmative:
   a. Is Berkeley Burke relieved of any liability which might arise under s27, FSMA by reason of COBS 11.2.19?
   b. Is Berkeley Burke relieved of any liability which might arise under s27, FSMA by reason of Article 29 of the Regulated Activities Order?
   c. Is Berkeley Burke relieved of any liability which might arise under s27, FSMA by reason of Article 33 of the Regulated Activities Order?
3. GLO issue 3: If GLO issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, did Berkeley Burke know that the SIPP was being arranged by the relevant introducer in contravention of the general prohibition?
4. GLO issue 4: In any event, would it be just and equitable to allow Berkeley Burke to enforce the SIPP agreement and/or retain money and property paid or transferred under the agreement, or is further enquiry into each Claimant’s circumstances required?
5. GLO issue 5: In establishing SIPPs in relation to those claimants who were introduced by (1) TPS Land and (2) SJ Stone and (3) Jackson Francis, was Berkeley Burke carrying on a joint enterprise with that introducer?
6. GLO issue 6: Was the standardised documentation produced by Berkeley Burke sufficient to comply with their duties under COBS 2.2.1R?
7. GLO issue 7: In relation to each of the 3 causes of action relied on by the claimants (s27, FSMA, breach of COBS and joint venture liability) when did time start to run for the purposes of ss2 and 9 of the Limitation Act 1980?
8. GLO issue 8: In assessing any claimant’s loss, should the value of the SIPP be deemed to be “zero” or if it has no current, realisable market value, should any assessment of damages be adjourned or should the court make an interim award of damages?

102. Lloyds/HBOS Litigation

Date of Order: 6th August 2014
Judge: Mr Justice Nugee
Court: The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Managing Court: The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Lead Solicitors: Harcus Sinclair of 3 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3AA

Defining issues:

This order applies to claims which give rise to the following common or related issues of fact or law (which issues may fall to be amended at a later date):

1. Whether during the period between 18th September 2008 and 19th January 2009 the Defendants owed fiduciary duties and/or a common law duty of care to the Claimants in respect of the correctness, accuracy and completeness of the information, recommendations and advice provided concerning Lloyds’ proposed acquisition of HBOS and/or its recapitalisation with government money through the Placing and Open Offer, and if so the scope of any such duties.
2. Whether during the period between 18th September 2008 and 19th January 2009 the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties and/or duty of care that they owed to the Claimants by (a) providing incorrect advice and/or recommendations, and/or (b) making incorrect or misleading statements and/or (c) omitting to disclose material information in relation to the financial circumstances of HBOS and/or the merits of Lloyds proposed acquisition of HBOS and/or its recapitalisation with government money through the Placing and Open Offer.
3. Whether during the period between 18th September 2008 and 19th January 2009 the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties and/or duty of care that they owed to the Claimants by putting the proposed acquisition of HBOS and participation in the recapitalisation scheme to the Lloyds shareholders and permitting them to vote on resolutions to approve those transactions on the basis of what they knew to be misleading and/or incomplete information, statements and advice.
4. Whether during the period between 18th September 2008 and 19th January 2009 the Defendants breached any continuing fiduciary duty and/or duty of care that they owed to the Claimants by failing to (a) correct any misrepresentations, (b) make good any omissions in relation to the information disclosed, (c) correct any incorrect advice or recommendations and/or (d) pull out of or terminate Lloyds’ acquisition of HBOS and participation in the government recapitalisation scheme.
5. The extent to which the value of shares in Lloyds diluted as a result of the acquisition of HBOS and the recapitalisation.
6. What factors, other than dilution, caused the reduction in the share price of Lloyds in the period between 18th September 2008 and 19th January 2009, and to what extent.

101. The Dr Gordon Bates (Deceased) And Barclays Bank Group Litigation

Date of Order: 27th May 2016
Judge: Mrs Justice Nicola Davies
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Strand, London
Managing Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Strand, London
Lead Solicitors: Slater and Gordon, 50-52 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1HL

Defining Issues:

This Order applies to claims in respect of the following common or related issues of fact or law and those Claims will constitute the Group Litigation:

(a) Whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimants to protect them from harm and personal injury;
(b) Whether the Defendant was negligent in instructing Dr Bates to carry out pre-employment and/or post-employment medical examinations;
(c) Whether the Defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of Dr Bates which included deliberate sexual assaults; and
(d) Whether the claims are statute-barred and, if so, whether the court should disapply the limitation period.

100. Contaminated Blood Products Group Litigation

Date of Order: 27 October 2017
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Strand, London
Managing Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Strand, London
Lead Solicitors: Collins Solicitors, 20 Station Road, Watford, Herts, WD17 1AR

Defining Issues

1.1. Whether in exercise of its obligations pursuant to statute or otherwise to provide

1.1.1. a national blood transfusion service
1.1.2. a national blood products laboratory
1.1.3. a national epidemiology service

the Defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent personal injury or loss to the Infected Claimants.

1.2. Whether in exercise of those obligations or otherwise the Defendant owed a duty to the Claimants to provide prompt and timely disclosure of the state of knowledge of the Defendant at all material times of the risk of infection from Contaminated Blood Products.

1.3. Whether in exercise of those obligations or otherwise the Defendant owed a duty to provide prompt and timely notification to the Infected Claimants of the information and/or knowledge which the Defendant held relating to the infection of the Infected Claimants with Hep C, and/or HIV.

1.4. Whether any undertakings given by the Claimants or any of them, directly or indirectly, to the Defendant at any time arising out of the HIV Haemophilia Litigation or otherwise are binding upon the Claimants, and in all the circumstances whether it is unconscionable for the Defendant to rely upon such undertaking.

1.5. Insofar as any of the Claimants may have discontinued a case brought within the HIV Haemophilia Litigation whether such discontinuance is binding upon those Claimants and/or their dependants, and in all the circumstances whether it is unconscionable for the Defendant to rely upon the said discontinuance.

1.6. Whether insofar as might be necessary the Court should exercise its discretion under Section 33.1 of the Limitation Act 1980 in favour of the Claimants.

1.7. In the event that the duty at 1.1 above was owed, whether the Defendant was in breach of that duty.

1.8. In the event that the duty at 1.2 above was owed, whether the Defendant failed to provide prompt and timely disclosure to the Claimants so as to be in breach of that duty and whether any such failure amounted, at any time, to misfeasance in public office.

1.9. In the event of breach of duty at 1.3 above, whether the Defendant failed to provide prompt and timely notification to the Claimants so as to be in breach of that duty and whether any such failure amounted, at any time, to misfeasance in public office.

and those claims will constitute the Contaminated Blood Products Group Litigation (CBPGL).

99. The Chirk Nuisance Group Litigation

Date of Order: 22 June 2017
Judge: Senior Master Fontaine
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Hugh James, Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff, CF10 1DY

Defining issues

1. This Order applies to claims in respect of the following common or related issues of fact or law: (1) Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in public or private nuisance by reason of dust, noise or odour emissions as a result of the management or operation of the Site; (2) What the distance is beyond which the Claimants’ complaints of nuisance are unlikely to have been of such a degree as to constitute an actionable nuisance; (3) The levels of damages which should be awarded to the Claimants if their complaints of nuisance are justified; (4) Whether the Claimants are entitled to equitable relief by way of either an injunction, or a declaration (with liberty to apply to restore their claim for an injunction);

98. The British Steel Coke Oven Workers Litigation

Date of Order: 20 January 2017
Judge: Mr Justice Turner
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Co-Lead Solicitors: Irwin Mitchell of Wellbar Central, 36 Gallowgate, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 4TD and Hugh James Solicitors, 2 Central Square, Cardiff, CF10 1FS

Defining issues

1. The “claims” are claims for damages and loss for personal injury (limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or chronic bronchitis (known together as “non-malignant respiratory disease”), temporary exacerbation of asthma (“TEA”), squamous cell skin cancer, lung cancer or bladder cancer) arising out of the employment of the workers named in the group register at various coke ovens owned and operated at various times by British Steel or other companies for whom British Steel have liabilities.

97. The Post Office Group Litigation

Date of Order: 21 March 2017
Judge: TBC
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Lead Solicitors: Freeths LLP of Floor 3, 100 Wellington Street, Leeds, LS1 4LT

Defining Issues

1. This Group Litigation Order (“GLO”) applies to all claims (hereinafter “the Claims”) made against Post Office Limited by Claimants:

a. who claim to have suffered losses as a result of Post Office Limited having:

1. Inappropriately attributed to them and/or inappropriately recovered alleged shortfalls in branch accounts from them;
2. suspended them, terminated or induced their resignation from their appointments or engagements, for a reason related to inappropriately alleged shortfalls in their branch accounts;
3. pursued civil or bankruptcy proceedings, criminal prosecutions and/or restraint applications against them for a reason related to inappropriately alleged shortfalls, and/or;
4. sought to do any of the foregoing for a reason related to inappropriately alleged shortfalls in their branch’s accounts; and

b.whose claims gives rise to one or more of the GLO Issues in Schedule 1.

1. These Claims shall constitute and shall be known as “The Post Office Group Litigation” and are to be conducted in accordance with the terms of this GLO and any subsequent orders. The parties to these claims are bound by the orders of the court made in relation to The Post Office Group Litigation.

96. The Hillsborough Victims Litigation

Date of Order: 23rd January 2017 Judge: TBC Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Managing Court: The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL Lead Solicitors: Saunders Law of 1 Essex Street, London WC2R 3HY

Defining Issues

1. The GLO issues are:

1.1 Whether officers of the South Yorkshire Police and/or the West Midlands Police acting as public officers sought to deliberately conceal the true circumstances of the Hillsborough tragedy in order to deflect blame from South Yorkshire Police for the deaths and injuries caused and suffered as a result of the Hillsborough tragedy, and to avoid criminal and civil liability and public censure over the part played by the actions and inactions of the police officers in the tragic events.

1.2 Whether officers of the South Yorkshire Police and/or the West Midlands Police sought to deflect responsibility and accountability from the South Yorkshire Police, rather than establishing the truth of what occurred, by setting out to establish a false narrative of the events leading up to the tragedy and the causes of the injuries and deaths, including by:

(i) officers deliberately and falsely setting out to blame the Liverpool football club supporters for the tragedy, by manufacturing and/or exaggerating evidence, and pursuing lines of inquiry and investigations directed and aimed at proving fault on the part of supporters, without regard to the truth or merits or the lines of inquiries and investigations; and/or

(ii) constructing and/or furthering this false narrative by deliberately manipulating and ignoring or marginalising lines of inquiries and investigations that suggested / had the potential to suggest fault on the part of South Yorkshire Police officers; and/or

(iii) concealing and/or deliberately ignoring evidence that tended to undermine this false narrative and/or intimidating and cajoling witnesses to amend their evidence and accounts to accord with this false narrative, and/or fabricating and/or manipulating evidence and other materials provided to inquiries and investigations set up to investigate the tragedy to accord with this false narrative, including the investigation conducted by the Second Defendant into the actions of the First Defendant.

1.3 Whether in so doing the officers of the South Yorkshire Police and/or the West Midlands Police:

a) knowingly/recklessly acted beyond their powers; and b) caused damage to the Claimants of a type that they were aware would probably occur and/or were reckless as to its occurrence.

And whether thereby they acted unlawfully and committed the tort of misfeasance in a public office.

1.4 And if so, whether the First and/or Second Defendants are liable for the same pursuant to section 88 of Police Act 1996 and/or section 48 Police Act 1964.

95. Royal Mail Group Litigation

Date of order: 22 July 2016
Judge: Mr Justice Mann Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Managing court: Chancery Division Lead solicitors: Mishcon de Reya LLP, Africa House, 70 Kingsway, London WC2B 6AH

Contact:
Leslie Allen. Telephone: 020 3321 7136
Waqar Shah. Telephone: 020 3321 6252
Robert Hartley. Telephone: 020 3321 6499

Defining issues

This litigation concerns the VAT treatment of postal services supplied by Royal Mail (“RM”) to the claimants for consideration. The issue is whether the services should have been standard rated by reason of European Union law at the time they were supplied, and whether the price paid by the claimants for the services was a VAT inclusive amount.

The claims are for alleged breaches of RM’s statutory duty to issue VAT invoices to the claimants in respect of the services. The claimants seek a range of remedies arising from the alleged breaches.

The cut-off date for new claimants to join the group litigation is 28 February 2017.

94. Corin Metal on Metal Hip

Date of order: 22 October 2015
Judge: The Senior Master, Master Fontaine, and Master Cook
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing judge: Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day

Defining issues

1. The correct approach in law to the determination of defect under section 3 of the CPA [Consumer Protection Act] 1987.
2. Whether each of Corin’s products was defective at the relevant date of supply.
3. The correct approach in law to the applicability of the “development risks” defence in section 4(e) of the CPA 1987.

93. Construction Industry Vetting Information

Date of order: 8 October 2015
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Supperstone and Master Leslie
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Thompsons Solicitors, Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3LW

Defining issues

Paragraph 35 of the Group Litigation Order dated 10 July 2014 be amended so as to read:

The cut off date for registration of claims on the Group Register shall be 2 February 2016. No Claim shall be entered on the Group Register after this date, save by Order of the Management Court.

The following costs relating to the July 2015 CMC shall be common costs in the case:

(a) The CSSG’s costs of its application for disclosure against the Macfarlanes Defendants; and
(b) The costs of the Macfarlanes Defendants occasioned by the CSSG’s application for expert evidence.

92. CPT

Date of order: 14 August 2008
Judge: His Honour Judge Griggs
Court: Truro County Court
Managing court: Truro County Court
Lead solicitors: Richard Scrase of Follett Stock, Truro Business Park, Truro, TR4 9NH

Defining issues

Whether the First and/or Second Defendants are liable to the Claimants or to any additional potential Claimants in negligence and/or for breach of statutory duty in respect of:

• Medication administered without the Claimant’s consent and without the proper authorisation of a qualified medical practitioner
• The use of physical intervention holds to restrain the Claimant in communal areas
• The failure to obtain, implement and periodically review a suitable care plan for the Claimant
• Conditions and standards of care generally

Whether the First Defendant is liable to the Claimants or to any additional potential Claimants for breach(es) of the Human Rights Act.

Whether the First Defendant is liable to the Claimant for assault or battery.

Whether the First and/or Second Defendants are liable to the Claimants or to any additional potential Claimants to make restitution and/or for breach(es) of fiduciary duty and/or for breach of trust.

91. Winterbourne View

Date of order: 27 February 2013
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Andrew Hannam of Foot Anstey LLP, 100 Victoria Street, Bristol, BS1 6HX

Defining issues

In such circumstances as it is proved that the Claimants were either:

1. themselves abused while under the care of the Defendant at Winterbourne View Hospital (WVH), or
2. injured by witnessing the abuse of other residents at WVH, or
3. injured by learning of the abuse of close relatives at WVH between 2006 and 2011:

(a) Is the Defendant vicariously liable for the actions of those persons who perpetrated the abuse?
(b) Is the Defendant a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998?
(c) What are the appropriate levels of (i) general damages, (ii) past losses, (iii) future losses, and (iv) if appropriate, Human Rights Act damages for the Claimants?

90. Recognised Overseas Self Invested International Pensions (ROSIIP)

Date of order: 22 June 2012
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court
Lead solicitors: Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) LLP, 21 Wilson Street, London EC2M 2TD (contact: Simon Whitehead, 020 7826 4581)

Defining issues

1. Should the Claimant be granted permission to apply for judicial review of the decision to assess the Claimant to tax upon the transfer from a registered pension scheme to ROSIIP [Recognised Overseas Self Invested International Pensions] while ROSIIP appeared on the Defendant’s list of QROPS [qualifying recognised overseas penion scheme]?
2. Did the Claimant acquire a legitimate expectation that his/her transfer from a registered pension scheme to ROSIIP would not attract tax liabilities if ROSIIP appeared on the Defendant’s published list of QROPS at the date of the transfer and the trustees had received an acceptance letter from HMRC dated 16 November 2006?
3. Was the decision to assess the Claimant to tax upon the transfer from a registered pension scheme to ROSIIP while ROSIIP appeared on the Defendant’s published list of QROPS contrary to the Claimant’s legitimate expectation (if any) and a breach of public law and/or EU law and/or human rights?

89. Sonae

Date of order: 12 July 2012
Judge: His Honour Judge Stewart QC
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Camps Solicitors

Defining issues

1. Whether the defendant is liable in negligence, nuisance or for breach of statutory duty
2. Whether the claimants were exposed to smoke, debris, dust, fumes or chemicals from the defendant’s fire (referred to hereafter as ‘smoke’)
3. Whether the smoke from the defendant’s fire caused the claimants’ injuries by reason of the claimants exposure to it
4. What symptoms have been/were sustained by individuals who can prove exposure to the smoke from the defendant’s fire
5. The nature of possible actionable injury and causation thereof
6. What guidelines should apply to awards of general damages in respect of any injuries sustained by the claimants.

88. PIP Breast Implant

Date of order: 17 April 2012
Judge: Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Cardiff District Registry, Mercantile Court
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors

Defining issues

Whether, if it is established that the implants (defined in paragraph 1 above) were implanted in the claimant pursuant to a contract for the transfer of goods within the meaning of section 1 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 [SOGSA] and/or pursuant to a contract of sales of goods within the meaning of section 1of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 [SGA] to which the defendant (or in the case of an insurer, its insured) was the other contracting party, any of the implied terms pursuant to SOGSA and/or SGA regarding description, satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose were breached.

87. Shared Appeciation Mortgages (SAMs)

Date of order: 5 October 2009
Judge: Mr Justice Mann
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: RWP Solicitors Ltd, Meadow House, 22 Reading Road, Pangbourne, RG8 7LY

Defining issues

1. Can the questions of (1) the fairness or unfairness of a term arising under Regulation 4(1) of the 1994 Regulations and (2) the fairness or unfairness of a relationship under section 140A of the 1974 Act be determined by reference to the Common Circumstances alone, and without reference to the individual Circumstances of each case, having regard in particular to section 140B(9) of the 1974 Act?
2. Are the Relevant Provisions in the SAM [shared appreciation mortgage] Loan Agreements in plain and intelligible language within the meaning of Regulation 3(2) of the 1994 Regulations?
3. If the answer to Issue (2) is “yes”, are the Relevant Provisions exempt from assessment for fairness under the 1994 Regulations by virtue of Regulation 3(2) because they either define the main subject matter of the contract or concern the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services sold or supplied?
4. If the answer to Issue (2) or (3) is “no”, having regard to the Unfairness Allegations (to the extent that they are proved at trial): (a) Is the court in a position to conclude that the Relevant Provisions in the SAM Loan Agreements are unfair (for the purposes of Regulation 4(1) of the 1994 Regulations), having regard to the Common Circumstances but whatever the Individual Circumstances of any particular case might be: and (b) Does the Court so conclude?
5. If the answers on Issues (2) and (3) above are “yes”, or if the answer on Issue (4)(a) or (4)(b) above is “no”, then, having regard to the Unfairness Allegations (to the extent that they are proved at trial): (a) Is the court in a position to conclude that the relationships between the lender and Borrower are unfair (for the purposes of Section 140A of the 1974 Act), having regard to the Common Circumstances but whatever the Individual Circumstances of any particular case might be: and (b) Does the Court so conclude?
6. If the answer to Issue (5)(b) is “yes”, can the appropriate remedy under Section 140B be determined having regard to the Common Circumstances but without reference to the Individual Circumstances of each case?
7. If the answer to Issue (6) is “yes”, what is the appropriate remedy under Section 140B of the 1974 Act?

86. Zimmer Metasul Large Diameter Head and Durom Metal on Metal Hip

Date of order: 3 December 2014
Judge: Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB. DX 53326 Clerkenwell

Defining issues

1. Whether there was a defect in the Defendant’s product
2. Whether the damage was caused wholly or partly by a defect in the Defendant’s product
3. Quantification of Loss

85. Hafod Landfill

Date of order: 22 October 2013

84. Fleetwood

Date of order: 9 December 2012

83. Monckton

Date of order: 11 November 2012

82. Wildriggs Rendering Site

Date of order: 5 May 2011

81. Construction Industry Vetting Information

Date of order: 10 July 2014

Judge: Master Leslie
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead Solicitors: Claimant Solicitors Steering Group –

1. Guney Clark & Ryan Solicitors, 58 Green Lanes, London N16 9NH
2. Thompsons Solicitors LLP, Congress House, 23-28 Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW
3. Leigh Day & Co Solicitors, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB
4. OH Parsons LLP, Sovereign House, 212-224 Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8PR

Defining issues

(A) Alleged breach of confidence/misuse of private information

1. Did the Claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information held by the Services Group and/or Consulting Association or any part of it (“the Blacklisting Information”) in relation to: (a) its collection and retention and/or (b) its disclosure?
2. Was the information confidential?
3. Did the Defendant and/or any of the Third Parties owe a duty of confidence to the Claimant in respect of the information?
4. Did the Defendant and/or any of the Third Parties breach or threaten to breach that duty?

(B) Alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”)

1. Who was or were the data controller(s) in respect of any personal data of the Claimants recorded in the filing system held by the Consulting Association within the meaning of section 1(1) of the DPA?
2. If the Defendants or any of them was/were date controllers of any such personal data, did any such data controller(s) fail to comply with the data protection principles in respect of such personal data contrary to section 4(4) of the DPA?
3. If any other person(s) (including Mr. Kerr) was/were data controllers of any such personal data: (a) Did any such controller(s) fail to comply with the data protection principles in respect of such personal data contrary to section 4(4) of the DPA; and (b) If so, are the Defendants or any of them vicariously liable, whether on their own account or as representative members of the Consulting Association, for any such breach?
4. In respect of any such breaches as may be established by the Claimants:

(a) What are the principles applicable to any claim for compensation by the Claimants pursuant to section 13 of the 1998 Act and what is the appropriate measure of damages?
(b) What are the principles applicable to Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd’s claim for an indemnity contribution from the Third Parties in respect of any damages that may be awarded to the Claimants?

(C) Alleged defamation

1. What are the principles applicable in deciding:

(a) whether the claims are statute-barred (albeit the specific facts will vary from case to case);
(b) whether the publications concerning blacklist entries were made on occasions of qualified privilege; and
(c) whether inclusion on the blacklist was in itself defamatory

(D) Joint wrongdoing

1. Were the Defendants or any of them party to a common design to misuse confidential and/or private information, to defame and/or to act in breach of statutory duty under the DPA 1998 and, if so, did they perform acts on furtherance of any such common design?

(E) Alleged conspiracy

1. Were the Defendants or any of them party to an agreement or combination to injure the claimants by unlawful means in relation to the operation of the Services Group and/or the Consulting Association?
2. Did the Defendants or any of them have an intention to injure the Claimants by participation in any such conspiracy, in particular by denying employment to the Claimants?
3. Did the operation of the Services Group and/or the Consulting Association involve unlawful means by reason of breaches of the Claimants’ employment rights or of the DPA or breach of confidence or misuse of private information?

(F) Other

1. In respect of any tort or civil wrong which may be established:

(a) What are the principles applicable to any claim for damages by the Claimants and what is the appropriate measure of damages?
(b) What are the principles applicable to the Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd’s claim for an indemnity/contribution from the Third Parties in respect of any damages may be awarded to the Claimants?

80. DePuy Pinnacle Metal on Metal Hip

Date of order: 31 July 2014
Judge: Master Cook
Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London, EC1M 4LB. DX 53326 Clerkenwell.

Defining issues

Whether there was a defect in the Defendant’s product

Whether the damage was caused wholly or partly by a defect in the Defendant’s product

79. Lyme & Wood Landfill Group

Date of order: 21 November 2013
Judge: Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Technology and Construction Court
Lead solicitors: Bird & Bird LLP, Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY

Defining Issues

1. Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants for nuisance caused by odour emissions from the Lyme & Wood Landfill Site.
2. Whether the Claimants are entitled to an injunction

78. RBS Rights issue

Date of order: 19 September 2013
Judge: Mr Justice Hildyard
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Bird & Bird LLP, 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP

Defining issues

Whether there were relevant untrue and misleading statements in the Prospectus, within Section 90(1)(b)(i) of FSMA [Financial Services and Markets Act 2000], and if so what they were.

77. CF Arch cru

Date of order: 14 October 2013
Judge: Mr Justice Warren
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Harcus Sinclair, 3 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3AA

Defining issues

1. Whether by the acts and/or omissions of the Defendant in carrying out or purporting to carry out its role as ACD [authorised corporate director] of each of the CF Arch cru Funds the Defendant: (a) Was in breach of the COLL [Collective Investment Schemes sourcebook] rules and, if so, whether the Claimants, or some of them, have claims in respect of any loss caused by any such breaches pursuant to FSMA [Financial Services and Markets Act 2000] section 138D; (b) owed the Claimants, or some of them, a common law duty of care and, if so, whether the Defendant acted in breach of such duties.
2. Whether any such breaches as may be established have caused loss to the Claimants and, if so, in what amounts.

76. Visteon UK Ltd

Date of order: 20 December 2012
Judge: Mrs Justice Asplin
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing Court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Thompsons Solicitors LLP, Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LW. Telephone: 020 7290 0054. Reference: Kate Fox.

Defining Issues

(a) Whether the Ford Motor Company Limited (“Ford”) made statements during the period January 2000 to 1 April 2001 in connection with the transfer of the Claimants’ employment (or of the employment of the former employee of Ford to whom the Claimant’s claim relates) from the Defendant to Visteon UK Limited (“Visteon UK”), to the effect that the Claimants’ accrued pension benefits would be as secure in the Visteon UK Pension Plan as they would have been if they remained in the Ford Hourly Paid Contributory Pension Scheme and the Ford Salaried Contributory Pension Scheme;

(b) Whether such statements, alleged to have been promulgated by Ford via Visteon UK or reported by trade unions, are attributable to, or otherwise the responsibility of, Ford;

(c) Whether Ford owed a duty of care in tort to the Claimants to take reasonable care that such statements were not inaccurate or misleading and/or to correct any misleading impression they created;

(d) Whether the statements made were inaccurate or misleading, in breach of the Ford’s duty of care.

75. Iraqi Civilian Employees

Date of order: 12 July 2010
Judge: The Senior Master
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division of The High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, of Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB

Defining issues

All Claims are brought by, or on behalf of, former Iraqi employees of the Defendants in Iraq, and all those contracted via third parties to offer services to the Defendants in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 and seek damages from one or more of the Defendants alleged injuries and/or financial losses caused by the alleged failure of one or more of the Defendants to adequately protect them or their Deceased relatives from risk of threats and/or injury from those opposed to the Defendants’ presence in Iraq.

Defining issues to be considered include: Is the law of Iraq or the law of England & Wales the applicable law for determining: (i) liability; (ii) limitation; (iii) quantum in this matter?

74. Stamp Taxes

Date of order: 21 October 2010
Judge: Mr Justice Roth
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP, 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6DX. DX138213 Covent Garden 2. Telephone: 0207 804 1455. Reference: Mark Whitehouse.

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims that, in specified circumstances, the 1.5% stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax charges which arise on an issue or transfer of chargeable securities to clearance or depositary services (pursuant to sections 67, 70 and 93 of the Finance Act 1986) are contrary to European Union law.

The litigation also relates to the remedies available to the claimants (including consideration of issues of limitation and/or the effect of any applicable statutory regime in domestic law which permits recovery of stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax) if, as claimed, the charges are contrary to European Union law in the circumstances specified.

73. Manchester Children’s Homes (No.2)

Date of order: 27 July 2010
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Irwin (Nominated Trial Judge) District Judge Fairclough and District Judge Gosnell
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald, 37 Station Road, Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire, SK8 5AF. Reference: 100252/PG/PG.

Defining issues

In respect of common or related issues of fact or law:

Alleged personal injury of Claimants arising out of abuse, maltreatment lack of care and assaults carried out by the Defendants’ servants or agents during the period Claimants were resident at any children’s home managed or controlled by Manchester City Council.

72. Norton Aluminium

Date of order: 26 May 2010
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Flaux
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court Of Justice, Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Hugh James of Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Stree, Cardiff CF10 1DY. Reference: EGE/GL/NOR324/1.

Defining issues

Whether for the period beginning on 26th February 2002 the Claimants’ complaints of nuisance as a result of phenolic, sulphurous or other odurs, noise, smoke abd fumes and particulate matter/dust are complaints about emissions caused by the Defendant as a result of the management and operation of its foundry business at Norton Canes, Cannock , Staffordshire. (2 other common or related issues of fact or law are included.)

71. Linkwise

Date of order: 19 June 2008 Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice MacDuff
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Russell Jones & Walker- 11th Floor, The McLaren Building, 35 Dale End, Birmingham B4 7LN. Reference: RCL/CQS/Linkwise/604759.2.

Defining issues

Whether the Linkwise furniture supplied by the Defendants to the Claimants was “defective” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and/or not “of satisfactory quality” within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Action 1982 (3 other points in respect of common or related issues of fact or law).

70. Opiate Dependant Prisoners (No.2)

Date of order: 21 July 2009
Judge: The Senior Master
Court: Royal Courts of Justice
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Messrs Bhatt Murphy of 27 Hoxton Square, London N1 6NN (claimants’ solicitors)

Defining issues

Did the system operate in the relevant prisons or any of them at any material time (and if so which and when) of (i) stopping the community prescribed opiate maintenance prescriptions of opiate dependant prisioners and (ii) offering them only a detoxification regime? etc.

69. Westmill Landfill

Date of order: 27 March 2009
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Coulson
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Technology and Construction Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors, Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY. Telephone: 0209 2022 4871.

Defining issues

Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in respect of odour emissions from Westmill Landfill site.

68. Seroxat

Date of order: 29 October 2008
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors (Harmful Products Department) of Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF10 1DY

Defining issues

Does Seroxat have a capacity to cause adverse effects consequent upon or following discontinuance (withdrawl) such as prevent or make more difficult the ability of users to discontinue, withdrawal from or remain free from taking Seroxat to a greater extent than all other Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).

67. North Wales Children’s Homes

Date of order: 25 May 1999
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Uppal Taylor of 10 Bridgeford Road, Nottingham NG2 6AB. DX 10065 Nottingham

Defining issues

Claims brought by Claimants claiming damages for personal injury arising out of alleged abuse maltreatment and assaults perpetrated against them whilst they were in the care of various children’s homes.

66. Ocensa Pipeline

Date of order: 24 September 2008
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB

Defining issues

(Subject to sub-categorisation of cases which may become necessary in the future),

Is the law of Columbia, or England & Wales the applicable law for determination of (i) liability, (ii) limitation & (iii) quantification of loss and damage

Did the Defendant owe the Claimants a duty of care in relation to the design and construction and maintenance of the oil pipeline between the Cusiana-Cupiagua oilfields and the port of Covenas in Columbia (the Ocensa Pipeline)

If a duty of care was owed, what was the standard of care owed? etc.

65. MSC Napoli

Date of order: 9 June 2008
Judge: Mr Justice Steel
Court: Admiralty and Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division (of the Royal Courts of Justice)
Managing court: Admiralty and Commercial Court (Royal Courts of Justice)
Lead solicitors: Clyde & Co, Beaufort House, Chertsey Street, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4HA. Telephone: 01483 555 555. Fax: 01483 567 330.

Defining issues

Whether Defendants breached any obligation or duty they were under contract, tort, bailment, under the Hague or Hague-visby Rules so as to cause MSC Napoli to suffer structural damage and water ingress on 18/1/07 which led to the vessel being deliberately beached off the Devon Coast 20/1/07.

64. Powertrain

Date of order: 10 October 2007
Judge: His Honour Judge MacDuff QC
Court: Birmingham County Court
Managing court: Birmingham County Court
Lead solicitors: Rowley Ashworth Solicitors of St John’s House, St John’s Square, Wolverhampton WV2 4BH. Telephone: 01902 771551. Reference: KDL/SJ/17166/2129/ Various Claimants.

Defining issues

Whether the defendants is liable for the onset, development aggravation of asthma, alveolitis and other respiratory complaints arising out of exposure to contaminated metal working fluid and/or pollution at Powertrain.

63. St William’s

Date of order: 5 September 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC
Court: Dewsbury District Registry
Managing court: Dewsbury District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Jordans Solicitors of Grainstore, Woolpacks Yard, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF1 2SG

Defining issues

Alleged personal injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment, assults and negligence to the Claimants, carried out by Defendants employees, servants or agents while the Claimants were in the care of the Defendants at the St William’s School.

62. Miner’s Knee

Date of order: 21 December 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Grenfell
Court: Leeds County Court
Managing court: Leeds County Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors of Martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue de Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD and Irwin Mitchell of Sheffield for the purpose of service and receipt of documents.

Defining issues

To follow common or related issues of fact or law in respect of the alledged liability of the National Coal Board and/or British Coal Corporation (NCB/BCC) their successors the Department for Trade & Industry (DTI) for chronic knee injury suffered by their employees as a result of underground work in mines between 1949 and 1994, where chronic knee injury means diabling symptoms of the knee joint(s) resulting from damage to the menisci and/or osteoarthritis, but does not include bursitis.

61. Atomic Veterans

Date of order: 16 July 2007
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Divison, Central Office
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Central Office
Lead solicitors: Rosenblatt Solicitors, 9-13 St Andrew Street, London EC4A 3AF. DX 493 London/Chancery Lane. Telephone: 0207 955 0880. Reference: CJH/mmd/AT03-1.

Defining issues

Upon claims brough by thos atomic veterans (whether civilian or military) who participated in the British programme of testing of nuclear explosive devices between 1952-1958 set out in Master Particulars of Claim.

60. Soviva Hotel

Date of order: 2 November 2006
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Gibbs
Court: Birmingham District Registry
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell Solicitors of Imperial house, 31 Temple Street, Birmingham B2 5QB. DX 13030 Birmingham. Telephone: 0870 1500 100. Reference: PB.H/CG/(SSC)/EAT/SOVTUN/Dawson & Others/FIR.

Defining issues

Upon the claims brought by customers of the Defendants the following issues of fact arise:

To determine whether the scope of the Defendants’ (First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd) obligations in contract and/or tort and /or under statutory regulations; Whether the Defendants or its suppliers of services were in breach of those obligations; If so whether the Defendants’ breaches of those obligations caused the Claimants to suffer injury; In the event that the Defendants are liable to the Claimants quantification of damages.

59. VAT Interest Cars

Date of order: 28 June 2007
Judge: Mr Justice Henderson
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: McGrigors LLP, 5 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7BA. DX 227 Chancery Lane. Telephone: 0207 054 2500. Reference: Jason Collins.

Defining issues

To determine whether the claimants, being motor vehicle dealers who made successful claims for the refund of VAT for periods between 1973 and 1996, are entitled to a remedy to restore them to the position that they would have been in had they not paid overpaid VAT; and if so, is that remedy to be effected by a) the payment of money to represent the difference between simple interest already paid by HM Revenue & Customs and compound interest or b) some other remedy, and, if so, what?

58. Abidjan Personal Injury

Date of order: 12 March 2007
Judge: Master Turner
Court: Queen’s Bench
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Martyn Day of Leigh Day & Co, Priory House, 25 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4LB. Telephone: 0207 650 1234.

Defining issues

The Litigation conerns claims that claimant’s have sustained an injury as a result of alledged exposure to materials originating from the vessel, Probo Koala, which discharged at Abidjan on the 19th-20th August 2006.

57. St William’s

Date of order: 5 September 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC
Court: Dewsbury District Registry
Managing court: Dewsbury District Registry
Lead solicitors: Jordans Solicitors, The Grainstore, Woolpacks Yard, Wakefield WF1 2SG. Telephone: 01924 387 110. Fax: 01924 379 113. DX 15031 Wakefield. Reference: DAG/St William’s.

Defining issues

Alleged personal injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment, assaults and negligence to the Claimants, carried out by the Defendants’ employees, servants or agents while the Claimants were in the care of the Defendants at the St William’s School, Market Weighton, East Yorkshire.

56. Parkwood

Date of order: 23 August 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Bullimore
Court: Sheffield District Registry
Managing court: The Technology and Construction Court, Sheffield District Registry
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Solicitors, Martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue de Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD. Telephone: 01685 371 122. Fax: 01685 350 325. DX 53401 Merthyr Tydfil. Reference: Neil Stockdale [NAS/SF/PAR780/1].

Defining issues

Whether the Defendant [Viridor Waste Mangement Ltd] is liable to the Claimants in provate nuisance by reason of malodours, litter, dust, scavenging birds, flies and other pests from the landfill site at Parkwood, Sheffield

55. Lincoln Prison

Date of order: 3 August 2006
Judge: His Honour Judge Inglis
Court: Lincoln County Court
Managing court: Lincoln County Court
Lead solicitors: Sills & Betteridge, 46 Silver Street, Lincoln LN2 1ED. DX 11025 Lincoln. Telephone: 01522 510 463. Fax: 01522 510 463. Reference: SRW.HW.58821-3.

Defining issues

This Order applies to the following GLO [Group Litigation Order] issues in proceedings brought by prisoners or former prisoners against the Home Office arising out of a disturbance at Lincoln Prison on 23rd and 24th October 2002:

(1) The nature, extent and scope of any duty owed by the Defendants to the Claimants and whether such duty was discharged in the circumstances of the case

(2) Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that, in the event of a riot or disturbance, prisoners in different parts of the prison other than E Wing (the wing where vulnerable prisoners were located) would be targeted or be the subject of threats or violence

(3) Whether the keys or locks installed at the time of the riot in October 2002 were reasonable and adequate to discharge the duty of care owed to the Claimants

(4) Whether the failure to implement improvements in security recommended in May 2002 (principally the installation of KR locks at key points in the prison including access to residential accommodation in the event of an ordinary lock compromise) amounted to a breach of duty

(5) Whether there was any, or any adequate, contingency emergency evacuation plan for E Wing and whether any lack of, or a failure to implement, such a plan amounted to a breach of duty

(6) If the Defendants were in breach of duty in respect of issues (3) or (4) or (5), whether the outcome for (i) the Claimants on E Wing and (ii) the Claimants on other wings would have been different if the keys or locks installed had been adequate, or an adequate contingency emergency evacuation plan had been implemented

(7) The nature and extent of any duty to provide follow up counselling or psychiatric intervention for the Claimants

(8) If there was such a duty whether it was breached

(9) Whether the Claimants establish physical or psychiatric injury and causation

(10) Whether Articles 2 or 3 are engaged and whether they were violated. Whether a human rights claim (if limitation can be overcome) adds anything to the substantive allegations.

54. Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) Damages

Date of order: 21 June 2006
Court: Queen’s Bench Division (on transfer from Chancery Division)
Managing court: Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: LA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP, 3 Noble Street, London EC2V 7EE. DX 33866 London Finsbury Square. Telephone: 08700 111 111. Reference: Michael Anderson.

Defining issues

To determine

A: whether

(i) the raising of an assessment(s) to value added tax (“VAT”) and/or (ii) the refusal to pay an amount claimed by way of repayment of value addede tax and/or (iii) the delaying of the making of a repayment of value added tax pending verification of the claim or other administrative measure and/or (iv) the setting off of an amount due by way of repayment of value added tax

in respect of transactions which gave rise to a valid VAT repayment claim but which the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs decided formed or may have formed part of a Missing Trader Intra Community fraud and, to that extent, fell outside the scope of VAT, was in breach of the Sixth EC Council Directive 77/338/EEC (“the Sixth Directive”);

B: whether the aforesaid actions were in breach of any other principles or provisions of European Community Law;

C: in so far as the aforesaid actions were in breach of the Sixth Directive or any other principles or provisions of European Community Law, whether any such breadh falls within the scope of the principles arising out of Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357).

53. Corby

Date of order: 14 February 2006
Judge: Mr Justice Akenhead
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Collins Solicitors, 20 Station Road, Watford, Hertfordshire WD17 1AR. DX 51516 Watford 2

Defining issues

Law:

To determine whether in the management and execution of land reclamation contracts which involved toxic waste which included heavy metals, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and dioxins in Corby, Northamptonshire between about 1985 and 1999, the Defendant (Corby Borough Council) owed a duty to the Claimants to take reasonable care to prevent the airbourne exposure of the Claimants’ mothers to such toxic waste durnig the embryonic stage of pregnancy.

Fact:

(i) In the event that any such duty was owed, whether the Defendant was in breach of that duty and, if so, in respect of which contracts, which sources of airbourne contamination, which contaminants, at which times and which geographical areas relevant to those Claimants on the Register such airbourne contamination extended to.
(ii) Whether any such breach had the ability to cause upper and or lower limb defects to the Claimants of the type complained of.
(iii) Whether any alleged loss arising out of such breach was forseeable.

52. Mogden

Date of order: 21 December 2005
Judge: Mr Justice Ramsey
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Technology and Construction Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James, Martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue De Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD. DX 53401 Merthyr Tydfil. Reference: NAS/SL/MOG25/1.

Defining issues

To determine whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants in respect of odour emissions and / or in respect of mosquitoes from the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works.

51. Fetal Anti Convulsant (FAC)

Date of order: 25 August 2005
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court, Master Leslie
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell, Riverside east, 2 Millsands, Sheffield, S3 8DT

Defining issues

Each Claimant alleges that his or her Mother was prescribed with, and ingested anti-convulsant medication containing sodium valporate while pregnant with the Claimant, and the medication prescribed and ingested during such pregnancy included a sodium valporate product, whether or not any other anti convulsant product was also prescribed and ingested during such pregnancy, and that the product or products were defective within the meaning of sections 2 and 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and article 4 of the EU Directive 85/374/EEC.

50. DePuy Hylamer

Date of order: 8 August 2005
Judge: Senior Master
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, 25 St John’s Lane, London, EC1M 4LB

Defining issues

Claimants were fitted with a Hylamer Ogee Acetular Cup during hip replacement surgery, and it is alleged in each case that the hip replacement has subsequently failed and that the Product was defective pursuant to sections 2 & 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and that its safety was less than persons generally were entitled to expect. The earlier failure of the hip replacement is asserted by the Claimants to have been caused or materially contributed to by a defect in the Product, namely that it had a greater tendency to wear than was appropriate in the light of its intended purpose and other related factors.

49. Dexion Deafness

Date of order: 28 April 2005
Judge: His Honour Judge Farnworth
Court: Luton County Court
Managing court: Luton County Court, His Honour Judge Farnworth. District Judge Gill or District Judge Hewitson-Brown
Lead solicitors: Pictons, 28 Dunstable Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU1 1DY

Defining issues

Matters arising out of Claimants personal injury (industrial deafness) arising out of the Claimants’ employment with the Defendants at their premises at Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire specifically relating to the Claimant’s deafness caused by excessive noise at the Defendants premises from 1963 to 2003.

48. Torremolinos Beach Club

Date of order: 21 April 2005
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Smith Partnership, 4th Floor, Celtic House, Heritage Gate, Friary Street, Derby, DE1 1LS

Defining issues

Pain, suffering and loss of amenity and/or diminution in value and/or loss of enjoyment of holidays and/or losses and expenses sustained by them during their stays at the Hotel Torremolinos Beach Club Hotel between October 2000 and July 2002 as a result of the Defendants’ alleged breach of contracts, the Defendants’ and/or suppliers of other services failure to properly perform their obligations to the Claimants in accordance with the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours regulations 1992.

47. Staffordshire Children’s Homes

Date of order: 11 February 2005
Judge: Mr Justice Gibbs
Court: Birmingham District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Birmingham District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division, His Honour Judge MacDuff QC
Lead solicitors: Smith Partnership, 4th Floor, Celtic House, Heritage Gate, Friary Street, Derby, DE1 1LS

Defining issues

Maltreatment, sexual, physical and emotional abuse and exposure to a harsh regime while at Community.

46. Evolution Films (pending)

Date of order: pending
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Harcus Sinclair, 40 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0BA. Contact: Damon Parker, Telephone: 020 7583 7353.

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims made against the Defendants by subscribers to a film partnership scheme known as the Evolution Films Partnerships in connection with the Defendants’ actions as (i) sponsor and promoter, (ii) administrator, and / or as appropriate (iii) tax and financial adviser in relation to the Evolution Films Partnerships.

45. British Telecommunications Pensions Group Ltd

Date of order: 4 August 2004
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Sanders & Co, 18-20 Broadway, Rainham, Essex

Defining issues

Whether the Defendant is liable to Claimant ex-employees whose employment was transferred in August 2000 from the Defendant to a joint venture called e-peopleserve Limited, for diminution in pension value, as a result of representations made at the time the said joint venture was set up.

44. St George’s

Date of order: 19 April 2004
Judge: Mr Justice Leveson
Court: Manchester District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Manchester District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division, District Judge McGrath, District Judge Fairclough
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald

Defining issues

Alleged abuse, maltreatment and assaults on the Claimants whilst resident at St George’s School, also known as Clarence House School, by the Defendants’ employees, servants or agents.

43. Foreign Income Dividends (FIDs)

Date of order: 20 July 2004
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: McGrigors LLP, 5 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7BA. Contact: Jason Collins, 0207 054 2727 and Rupert Shiers, 0207 054 2590.

Defining issues

The litigation involves claims by pension funds or by life companies in respect of their pensions business for compensation where those claimants have received foreign income dividends which carried no right to a tax credit. Ordinary dividends paid to these claimants would have carried a tax credit and that credit would have been paid to the claimants. The claimants say that the Foreign Dividend regime contravenes EU law and, as a result, they have suffered loss.

42. Calderdale

Date of order: 16 April 2004
Judge: His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC
Court: Halifax District Registry
Managing court: Halifax District Registry
Lead solicitors: Jordans, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF13 1HL

Defining issues

Whether alleged personal Injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment, assaults and negligence to the Claimants, were carried out by the Defendant’s employees, servants or agents while the Claimants were in the care of the Defendants in homes set out in Schedule 2 to the Order.

41. Lloyd’s Names UK Government

Date of order: 16 Apr 2004
Judge: Mr Justice Cresswell
Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court
Managing court: Commercial Court, High Court
Lead solicitors: not applicable

Defining issues

Not applicable.

40. Sabril

Date of order: 4 February 2004
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: High Court Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Wolferstons, Deptford Chambers, 60/66 North Hill, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8EP

Defining issues

Claimants allege s/he has suffered visual field constriction (VCF) as a result of taking Vigabatrin supplied by the Defendant under the name of Sabril.

39. Newton Longville

Date of order: 27 March 2003
Judge: Mr Justice Thayne Forbes
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Managing court: Technology and Construction Court, High Court, Queens Bench Division
Lead solicitors: Hugh James, martin Evans House, Riverside Court, Avenue De Clichy, Merthyr Tydfil, CF47 8LD

Defining issues

Common or related issues of fact or law namely whether the management by the Defendant of the Newton Longville landfill site has constituted a nuisance to the Claimants.

38. Trilucent Breast Implant

Date of order: 1 July 2003
Judge: His Honour Judge Brunning
Court: Nottingham County Court
Managing court: Nottingham County Court
Lead solicitors: Freethcartwright, Willoughby House, 20 Low Pavement, Nottingham, NG1 7EA

Defining issues

Claims by the Claimants who had their trilucent breast implants removed prior to 6th June 2000 and who claim damages pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

37. Park West

Date of order: 4 January 2002
Judge: Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court Chancery Division
Managing court: Chancery Division, High Court, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Comptons, 90-92 Parkway, Regents Park, London, NW1 7AN

Defining issues

Claims and Counterclaims which raise any one or more of the issues of fact or law set out in the schedule 2 to the Order.

36. Kirklees

Date of order: 1 September 2001
Judge: Mr Justice Bennett
Court: Dewsbury District Registry, High Court
Managing court: Dewsbury District Registry
Lead solicitors: Jordans, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF13 1HL

Defining issues

Alleged personal Injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment and assaults of the Claimants, carried out by the Defendant’s employees, servants or agents while the Claimants were resident at one or more of the homes during the periods set out in the schedule to the Order.

35. Franked Investment Income

Date of order: 8 October 2003

Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Dorsey & Whitney, 21 Wilson Street, London EC2M 2TD

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims that the payment of advance corporation tax (“ACT”) by company groups parented in the UK upon the distribution of dividend receipts sourced from companies within the group resident outside the UK and the inability to mitigate the incidence of ACT where profits were generated by the group outside the UK are contrary to the EC Treaty, the Parent Subsidiary Directive or the allocation of taxing provisions in double taxation conventions.

34. Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) Dividend

Date of order: 30 July 2003
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Dorsey & Whitney, 21 Wilson Street, London, EC2M 2TD

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims alleging that certain provisions of the corporation tax legislation concerning the provisions regarding controlled foreign companies and/or the provisions which make dividends received by UK corporations from companies resident outside the UK subject to corporation tax are contrary to the EC Treaty or the allocation of taxing provisions in Double Taxation Conventions.

33. Thin Cap

Date of order: 30 July 2003
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Dorsey & Whitney, 21 Wilson Street, London, EC2M 2TD

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims alleging that certain provisions of corporation tax legislation known as the Thin Capitalisation provisions are in breach of the EC Treaty and/or Double Taxation Conventions.

32. South Wales Children’s Homes (National Children’s Home)

Date of order: 28 November 2002 Judge: High Court, Queens Bench Division, Cardiff District Registry
Court: Cardiff High Court District Registry
Managing court: High Court, Queens Bench Division, Cardiff District Registry
Joint lead solicitors:

• Uppal Taylor, Cumberland House, 35 Park Row, Nottingham, NG1 6EE (Reference DE/50010/001)
• Woollcombe Beer Watts, 24 Tor Hill Road, Torquay, Devon, TW2 5RD (Reference PJA/th/South Wales Litigation)

Defining issues

The maltreatment, abuse and neglect of individuals while at Homes owned and operated by the Defendant.

31. South Wales Children’s Homes (Local Authority)

Date of order: 28 November 2002
Judge: Mr Justice Richards
Court: Cardiff High Court District Registry
Managing court: High Court, Queens Bench Division, Cardiff District Registry
Joint lead solicitors:

• Uppal Taylor, Cumberland House, 35 Park Row, Nottingham, NG1 6EE (Reference DE/50010/001)
• Woollcombe Beer Watts, 24 Tor Hill Road, Torquay, Devon, TW2 5RD (Reference PJA/th/South Wales Litigation)

Defining issues

Claims of maltreatment, abuse and neglect of individuals while at Community Homes owned and operated by the Defendants including their predecessors together with such further homes, local authorities and establishments that should be added as defendants.

30. Loss Relief

Date of order: 23 May 2003
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead Solicitors: Dorsey and Whitney

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims alleging that certain provisions of the corporation tax legislation relating to group relief for losses are in breach of the EC Treaty and/or the non-discrimination article of double taxation conventions.

29. Kenya Training Areas

Date of order: 4 November 2002
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co, London

Defining issues

The Claimants were involved in ordnance related incidents in the Archer’s Post, Dol Dol or Mpala Farm regions of Kenya, and have suffered injury, death or damage as a result of the negligence of the Defendants their servants or agents.

28. Scania 4 Series

Date of order: 22 July 2002
Judge: His Honour Judge Walton
Court: Newcastle County Court
Managing court: Newcastle County Court
Lead solicitors: Thompsons, of St Nicholas Building, St Nicholas Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1TH

Defining issues

Whether any person has sustained compensable personal injury as a result of driving a Scania 4 Series tractor unit from 1998 onwards, where the personal injury is alleged to arise out of a breach of duty relating to the adverse effect on the driver of the design and/or the construction and/or positioning of (1) the driver’s seat or (ii) the steering wheel or (iii) the engine cowling or (iv) of any part of the driver’s environment within the vehicle, or any allegation that (I),(ii),(iii) or (iv) was or were defective.

27. Chagos Islanders

Date of order: 3 July 2002
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Royal Courts of Justice
Managing court: The High Court, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: not applicable

Defining issues

Not applicable.

26. St Leonard’s

Date of order: 12 June 2002
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Malkcolm Johnson & Co, Surbiton, Surrey

Defining issues

Alleged personal injury arising out of abuse or assault of the Claimants carried out by the Defendants its employees servants or agents whilst the Claimants were resident at St. Leonard’s Children’s Home between 1961 and 1984.

25. Havelock

Date of order: 19 June 2001
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: not applicable

Defining issues

Not applicable

24. Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel

Date of order: 8 March 2002
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Lead solicitors: Messrs Collins of Watford

Defining issues

(1) whether the onset of deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”) sustained during the course of, or arising out of, international carriage by air, whether as a result of an act and/or omission of the carrier or otherwise, is capable, in principle, of being “an accident” causing bodily injury within the maening of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, (2) whether a claim against an air carrier for personal injury or death alleged to have been sustained during the course of, or as a result of, international carriage by air can be brought at common law in the alternative or in addition to a claim under the applicable version of the Warsaw Convention, (3) whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to claims brought against air carriers under the Warsaw Convention and/or at common law in relation to personal injury or death alleged to have been suffered by a passenger during the course of, or as a result of, international carriage by air and if so with what result.

23. United Utilities Sandon Dock

Date of order: 20 March 2002
Judge: Mr Justice Leveson
Court: Liverpool District Registry
Managing court: Liverpool District Registry, Technology & Construction Court, His Honour Judge Mackay
Lead solicitors: Not Known

Defining issues

Whether the defendant is liable to the claimants in respect of losses sustained as a result of allege exposure to odour or other emissions from the defendant’s wastewater treatment works at Sandon Dock Liverpool.

22A. Manchester Childrens Homes

Date of order: 1 July 2003

Please note as per the Order of Mr District Judge McGrath at Manchester District Registry, dated 1 March 2007, this case is now terminated.

Judge: District Judge McGrath
Court: Manchester District Registry
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald, 37 Station Road, Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire SK8 5AF

Defining issues

All Claimants seeking to participate in the Manchester Children’s Home Group Litigation shall issue claim before 4.00pm on 14th November 2003, being the cut-off date now determined for the purpose of paragraph 19 of the Group Litigation Order dated 12th June 2001.

22. Manchester Childrens Homes

Date of order: 12 June 2001

Please note as per the Order of Mr District Judge McGrath at Manchester District Registry, dated 1 March 2007, this case is now terminated.

Judge: Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Court: Manchester District Registry
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald, 37 Station Road, Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire SK8 5AF

Defining issues:

Alleged personal injury of the claimants arising out of abuse, maltreatment and assaults, carried out by the defendant’s employees, servants or agents during the period the claimants were in resident in the homes set out in the schedule to the order.

21. Persona

Date of order: 28 January 2001
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Nelsons

Defining issues

Whether the aid to contraception device called Persona was defective and/or not properly or adequately tested, resulting in the Claimants becoming pregnant.

20. Ryanair Agents

Date of order: 17 January 2002
Judge: Mr Justice Moore-Bick
Court: Commercial Court
Managing court: Commercial Court
Lead solicitors: Nicholson Graham & Jones, EC4

Defining issues

Whether Ryanair Ltd is liable to the Claimants in respect of outstanding commission to its Agents on any traffic document between 1/2/99 to date, in particular in respect of commission that would otherwise have been payable on any amount equivalent to UK Passenger Service Charge, and if so, how much commission is payable.

Defining issues

19. Trecatti

Date of order: 26 Nov 2001
Judge: Mr Justice Thomas
Court: Cardiff District Registry
Managing court: Cardiff District Registry
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Ford Simey of Merthyr Tydfil

Defining issues

Whether the management by Biffa Waste Services Ltd of the Trecatti landfill site since July 1994 constituted a nuisance to the Claimants and what, if any, relief are the Claimants entitled to in respect of any such nuisance.

18. Coal Mining Contractors Contribution

Date of order: 7 Jan 2002
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Managing Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Lead Solicitors: Eversheds and DLA

Defining issues

The right of British Coal Corporation to obtain a contribution from Coal Mining Contractor Defendants as joint tortfeasors in respect of respiratory injuries suffered by the Claimants.

Defining issues

17. Lower Lea Special School

Date of order: 12 December 2001
Judge: Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Court: Liverpool District Registry
Managing court: Liverpool District Registry
Lead solicitors: Jackson & Canter, Liverpool (Mr K E Robinson)

Defining issues

Alleged abuse, maltreatment and assaults both sexual and physical carried out by the Lower Lea’s employees, servants or agents during the period 1979 to 1998.

Defining issues

16. ACT (Advance Corporation Tax)

Date of order: 26 November 2001
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Park
Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Managing court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lead solicitors: Dorsey and Whitney

Defining issues

The litigation concerns claims alleging that provisions for the payment of advance corporation tax (ACT) upon dividends or distributions from UK subsidiaries to parent companies resident in other States breach the EC Treaty and/or double taxation conventions entered between the UK and other States.

Defining issues

15. Longcare

Date of order: 21 November 2001
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Master Turner, Senior Master

Defining issues

Whether the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Claimants, the scope of any such duty, and if so when any such duty was broken re its failure to prevent abuse to the Claimants which took place at (1) Stoke Place Mansion House and (2) Stoke Green

14. Gerona Air Crash

Date of order: 18 August 2001
Judge: His Honour Judge Graham Jones
Court: Cardiff County Court
Managing court: Cardiff County Court
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Ford Simey, Merthyr Tydfil

Defining issues

The entitlement to damages as a result of the crash of flight BY266A at Gerona Airport on 14th September 1999, in respect of claims brought by passengers who were on that flight.

13. Nantygwyddon

Date of order: 15 August 2001
Judge: The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
Court: Cardiff District Registry
Managing court: The Technology and Construction Court of Wales and Chester at the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
Lead solicitors: Hugh James Ford Simey, Merthyr Tydfil

Defining issues

Whether the management by the Defendant of the Nant-Y-Gwyddon landfill site since March 1995 constituted a nuisance to the Claimants and/or negligence on behalf of the Defendant

12. DePuy Hylamer

Date of order: 10 August 2001
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Master Turner, Senior Master

Defining issues

Whether Claimants entitled to have land treated as set-aside land for purpose of entitlement to compensation if in calendar year or if in cropping year immediately preceding claims they had sown, cut & used for silage, grass. (and further - see Order)

11. West Kirby Residential School

Date of order: 27 June 2001
Judge: Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Court: Manchester District Registry
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald, Cheadle Hulme

Defining issues

Alleged personal injury arising out of abuse, maltreatment and assaults, carried out by the School’s employees, servants or agents.

10. Esso Collection

Date of order: 27 June 2001
Judge: Mr Justice Moore-Bick
Court: Commercial Court
Managing court: Commercial Court
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell, London

Defining issues

Claims arising out of the Esso Partnership Licence Agreement which raise issues concerning the Esso Collection Promotion and such other related issues as the Court may determine.

9. Nationwide Organ

Date of order: 16 June 2001
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Messrs Clarke Willmott & Clarke

Defining issues

Whether the removal and/or retention and/or disposal of tissue, whole organs or parts of organs from the bodies of deceased persons following hospital or coronial post-mortem confers any cause of action upon the Claimants and which do not form part of the Royal Liverpool Children’s Litigation.

8. McDonalds Hot Drinks

Date of order: 22 May 2001
Judge: The Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Managing court: Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Messrs Clarke Willmott & Clarke

Defining Issues

(a) whether the Defendant was negligent in dispensing and serving hot drinks at the temperature at which in fact they did in these cases, (b) whether it was necessary for the Defendant in order to properly discharge any duty of care owed towards the Claimants, to dispense and serve their hot drinks at some lower temperature than in fact they did, and, if so, at what maximum temperature, (c) whether the cups used by the Defendant were of such unsound and /or inadequate construction as to render the Defendant’s use of them for the service of hot drinks to their customers, negligent, (d) whether the lids used by the Defendant for such purposes were of such poor fit or otherwise so inappropriate as to render the Defendant’s use of them for the service of hot drinks to their customers, negligent, (e) whether there was a duty upon the Defendant to warn their customers as to the risk of scalding from hot drinks, (f) if there was such a duty, whether the Defendant was in breach of it, (g) as regards the hot drinks which they produced for sale to the customers, whether the Defendant was in breach of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 because those hot drinks were “defective”.

7. JMC Holidays / Club Aguamar

Date of order: 8 February 2001
Judge: not applicable
Court: Birmingham
Managing court: Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell of Birmingham

Defining issues

(a) that the Claimants contracted with the Defendants to purchase package holidays at the Club Aguamar Hotel and stayed at the Club Aguamar Hotel between the dates set out in the schedule to the order, and (b) that the Claimants suffered gastric or other illness of various durations, and/or personal injury, and/or distress, inconvenience, loss and damage as a result of improper performance of the provision of services under the holiday contract, in respect of which the Claimants hold the Defendant liable (i) under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, and/or (ii) by reason of breaches of the said contracts of various dates for the provision of holidays, made in writing, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, and/or (iii) by reason of the Defendant’s negligence during the said period, and/or (iv) by reason of the Defendant’s misrepresentations made on various dates and inducung the Claimants to enter the said contracts for the provision of holidays.

6. JMC Holidays

Date of order: 7 November 2000
Judge: Mr Justice Hughes
Court: Birmingham
Managing court: Birmingham District Registry
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell of Birmingham

Defining issues

Whether the Defendant is liable to the Claimants, under the Package Travel, Package Holiday and Package Tour Regulations 1992 and/or otherwise, in respect of personal injury, loss and damage suffered in the course of holidays during the periods and at the Hotels set out in Schedule 12 to the Order, and if so (b) what is a proper measure of damages for such injury, loss and damage.

5. Gower Chemicals

Date of order: 18 November 2000
Judge: HH Judge Graham Jones
Court: Cardiff County Court
Managing court: Cardiff County Court
Lead solicitors: Not known

Defining issues

The accumulation of toxic fumes in the sewage pumping station at the junction of Elba Crescent and Baldwin Crescent, Crymlyn Burrows, Port Talbot on 10.10.96 and as to (a) the nature and source of the substance which accumulated in the sewage pumping station and in particular whether it was trichlorofluoromethane, (b) the nature and extent of duty of care owed to the various claimants by each of the respective defendants, (c) whether the substance accumulated as the result of a failure to take reasonable in the circumstances and/or other breach of duty by Gower Chemicals and/or Neath and Port Talbot County Borough Council, (d) whether the accumulation and toxicity were foreseeable by them.

4. Cape plc

Date of order: 3 November 2000
Judge: Master Turner, Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Managing court: Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Lead solicitors: Leigh Day & Co

Defining issues

Asbestosis-related diseases, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of Cape Plc.

3. Kerr/North Yorkshire Health Authority

Date of order: 18 October 2000
Judge: His Honour Judge Robert Taylor
Court: Leeds County Court
Managing court: Leeds County Court
Lead solicitors: Irwin Mitchell of Leeds

Defining issues

Damages for personal injury allegedly caused by negligent psychiatric treatment by Dr W S Kerr, negligence in supervision of Dr Kerr by the Authority and by employees of the Authority in failing to report instances of inappropriate treatment.

2. Royal Liverpool Children’s

Date of order: 12 November 2000
Judge: Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Court: Liverpool District Registry
Managing court: Liverpool District Registry
Lead solicitors: None

Defining issues

Whether the retention by the Defendant and/or their predecessors in title of tissue, parts of organs from the bodies of stillborn or deceased children after post-mortem confers any cause of action for psychiatric trauma suffered by the parents of those children caused by the discovery of that retention

1A. Redbank

Date of order: 13 June 2001
Judge: District Judge McGrath
Court: Manchester District Registry
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Not applicable

Defining issues

This Order is subsequent and subject to the Group Litigation Order consented to by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales on the 10th day of November 2000 and the Order of District Judge Fairclough dated the 24th day of July 2000. Upon hearing the Solicitor for the Claimants and the Defendant it is ordered that:

1. Proceedings be stayed until 4.00pm on the 7th November 2001 when the case be listed for a Case Management Conference before District Judge McGrath at 3.30pm with an estimated length of hearing of one hour preceded by 30 minutes reading time.
2. At least 5 days before the Case Management Conference the Co-ordinating Solicitors for the Claimants shall lodge an up to date case synopsis and a draft of further Directions sought to be agreed so far as is practicable with the Solicitors for the Defendant.
3. All Claimants seeking to participate in the Redbank Litigation shall issue proceedings before 4.00pm on the 7th day of December 2001.
4. The Co-ordinating Solicitors for the Claimants shall forward copies of this Order to the Law Society and to the Royal Courts of Justice (Special Projects Office) to request and enable the publication of the nature and the effect of this Order and shall at the Case Management Conference provide details of the manner in which publication shall have been effected.
5. Costs in the case.
6. The Claimants’ Solicitors shall draw and lodge this Order by 4.00pm on the 20th day of June 2001. Abney Garsden McDonald 37 Station Road Cheadle Hulme Cheshire SK8 5AF. Reference: DC/4480/1.

1. Redbank

Date of order: 10 November 2000
Judge: Douglas Brown J
Court: Manchester District Registry
Managing court: Manchester District Registry
Lead solicitors: Abney Garsden McDonald of Manchester

Defining issues

Abuse, maltreatment and assaults on the claimants whilst resident at Redbank School, Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, by the Defendants’ employees, servants or agents

2001 Folio 398. Prentice Ltd/DaimlerChrysler UK Ltd

Date of order: 30 April 2001
Judge: Mr Justice Cressswell
Court: Commercial Court
Managing court: Commercial Court
Lead solicitors: Allen & Overy, London

Defining issues

The effectiveness or otherwise of the termination notices served on or about 13 December 2000 by the Daimler/Chrysler UK Ltd on Prentice Ltd and on all other members of Daimler/Chrysler UK Ltd’s dealer network.