High Court backs 91,000 UK drivers over Volkswagen’s unlawful ‘dieselgate’ devices
VOLKSWAGEN installed unlawful “defeat devices” in millions of vehicles, the High Court has said in the first major ruling over UK compensation claims following the “dieselgate” emissions scandal.
A judge sided with lawyers representing more than 91,000 Britons who bought affected VW, Audi, Seat and Skoda diesel models, who argued that the devices “cheated” European emissions standards designed “to save lives”.
The devices programmed the cars to reduce their harmful nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions when they sensed they were being tested by regulators.
However, this meant the cars were then found to be emitting up to 40 times the legal limit of NOX when out on the road.
The preliminary ruling was welcomed as “a big step” towards consumers securing compensation from VW that could run into hundreds of millions. VW said it is now considering appealing the judgement.
The ruling comes after the Volkswagen Group announced in September 2015 that 11 million vehicles worldwide, including almost 1.2 million in the UK, were affected by the emissions devices, following an investigation by US regulators.
The disclosure prompted legal action in a number of countries around the world and has seen VW pay out more than £26billion in fines, recall costs and civil settlements. It has also led to criminal charges by German prosecutors against current and former senior employees.
The UK ruling came after VW argued that the software installed in its vehicles had not constituted “defeat devices” under EU and UK law.
In a judgment delivered remotely on yesterday, Mr Justice Waksman ruled that “the software function at issue in this case is indeed a defeat device” under EU regulations.
However, the ruling does not prove VW’S liability for the UK compensation claims that could see claimants receiving estimated payouts of up to £10,000 each – putting the potential final bill for VW at more than £900million.
A spokesman for the Volkswagen Group said: “Volkswagen is considering carefully the grounds on which it may seek to appeal today’s decision.”