Pan NOx Emissions Litigations, Re [2024] EWHC 1271 (KB) (01 May 2024)

Pan NOx Emissions Litigations, Re [2024] EWHC 1271 (KB) (01 May 2024)

The court allowed the Renault Defendants to adduce the proposed expert report to the extent it provides a practitioner's perspective on the French Blocking Statute, as some of this evidence may assist the court and be reasonably required to determine the issue. However, the court directed Renault to identify which parts of the report are responsive and practitioner-focused, to avoid duplication and ensure clarity for cross-examination.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1271 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Pan NOx Emissions Litigations; Defendant: Renault Defendants; Defendant: PCD Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, French Blocking Statute, Group Litigation, Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Expert Evidence French Blocking Statute Group Litigation Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pan NOx Emissions Litigations

Claimant

Renault Defendants

Defendant

PCD Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit Renault to adduce further expert evidence addressing the French Blocking Statute and practitioner risk of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert report improperly duplicates existing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the Renault Defendants to adduce the proposed expert report to the extent it provides a practitioner's perspective on the French Blocking Statute, as some of this evidence may assist the court and be reasonably required to determine the issue. However, the court directed Renault to identify which parts of the report are responsive and practitioner-focused, to avoid duplication and ensure clarity for cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Renault to identify and limit the expert report to practitioner-responsive sections relevant to the Claimants' expert evidence.
  • Claimants' counsel to be provided clarity on which parts of the report require cross-examination.