Pan NOx Emissions Litigations, Re

Pan NOx Emissions Litigations, Re

The court allowed the admission of the expert report to ensure the Defendants could respond to practitioner aspects of the French Blocking Statute issues, but directed Renault to identify responsive sections and avoid duplication, with costs implications for unnecessary work.

Parties
Claimant: Pan NOx Emissions Litigations; Defendant: Renault Defendants; Defendant: PCD Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Expert report admitted with conditions
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, French Blocking Statute, Costs Implications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence French Blocking Statute Costs Implications

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 2 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 Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed expert report by Monsieur de Navacelle should be admitted given potential overlap and responsiveness to Claimants' expert reports
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants should be allowed to respond specifically to practitioner aspects of the French Blocking Statute issues

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the admission of the expert report to ensure the Defendants could respond to practitioner aspects of the French Blocking Statute issues, but directed Renault to identify responsive sections and avoid duplication, with costs implications for unnecessary work.

Court Disposition

Expert report admitted with conditions

Orders

  • Renault must identify responsive practitioner elements in the expert report and avoid duplicative academic analysis.
  • Claimants' counsel must be clearly informed of sections requiring cross-examination.