Background
Approximately 5,000 claimants represented by Bingham Long brought claims concerning alleged prohibited defeat devices in Peugeot, Citroën and DS diesel vehicles. Their claim form was validly issued and served within the four-month period generally allowed by the Civil Procedure Rules, but it was not served within the shorter deadline imposed for entry on the register in the Peugeot/Citroën/DS NOx Emissions Group Litigation Order.
Senior Master Cook had previously refused to extend the cut-off date or grant relief from sanctions, leaving the claimants off the Group Register. The claimants then argued that they could nevertheless participate in the group litigation and rely on its dispensation from serving separate particulars of claim. The defendants sought to strike out the claims because no separate particulars had been served.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Constable held that the earlier decision had determined that the claimants were not participants in the group litigation. In any event, the Group Litigation Order made registration a condition of participation and of receiving its procedural benefits. Because the claimants had not met the service deadline for registration, they could not rely on the order’s dispensation from serving separate particulars of claim. Their underlying claims nevertheless remained valid outside the group litigation.
The failure to serve particulars was serious, significant and unsupported by a good reason, but immediate strike out would be disproportionate. The Court ordered that the claims would be struck out automatically unless compliant, claimant-specific generic particulars were served within 21 days. If served in time, the claims would be stayed generally, with liberty to apply. The Court also required the claimants to pay their share of the adverse costs order from the defeat-device liability trial, despite their legal exclusion from the Group Litigation Order.
Key Takeaways
- Missing a group-register cut-off date can exclude claimants from a GLO and its procedural benefits without extinguishing otherwise valid individual claims.
- Claimants outside a GLO remain subject to ordinary pleading requirements and may have their parallel claims stayed to protect the orderly conduct of the group litigation.
- Although the pleading default was serious, a 21-day unless order was more proportionate than immediate strike out; the claimants also remained responsible for their share of relevant adverse costs.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the distinction between a claim falling within the subject matter of a GLO and a claimant being legally entitled to participate in it. Registration requirements and cut-off dates have substantive procedural consequences, but ordinarily do not operate as limitation provisions or automatically destroy claims.
It also shows the breadth of the Court’s case-management and costs powers over claims proceeding outside a GLO. Courts may stay such claims, condition their future progress, and allocate costs to prevent non-registered claimants from receiving the benefit of group litigation without sharing its burdens.