Crossley v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft & Ors

Crossley v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft & Ors

The GLO application was issued prematurely and pursued unreasonably, resulting in unnecessary hearings and costs for the VW and Dealer Defendants. The conduct was outside the norm for group litigation, justifying indemnity costs against the Relevant Claimants, except for the costs of the 27 November 2017 hearing,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Anthony Joseph Champion Crossley; Defendant: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft; Defendant: Audi Aktiengesellschaft; Defendant: Skoda Autos a.s; Defendant: SEAT S.A.; Defendant: Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Limited; Defendant: Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited; Respondent: Inchcape Retail Limited; Respondent: Listers Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Order (glo) Application / Costs Determination Following GLO Hearing
Outcome
Applications for costs by VW and Dealer Defendants granted in part; indemnity costs ordered against Relevant Claimants except for 27 November 2017 hearing.
Legal Topics
Premature GLO Application, Coordination Between Claimant Groups, Indemnity Costs, Adjournment of Hearings, Dealer Defendants' Involvement
Civil Procedure Group Litigation Costs Premature GLO Application Coordination Between Claimant Groups Indemnity Costs Adjournment of Hearings Dealer Defendants' Involvement

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Joseph Champion Crossley

Claimant

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant

Audi Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant

Skoda Autos a.s

Defendant

SEAT S.A.

Defendant

Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Limited

Defendant

Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited

Defendant

Inchcape Retail Limited

Respondent

Listers Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (glo) Application / Costs Determination Following GLO Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the GLO application was issued prematurely
  2. 2 Whether lack of coordination among claimant groups caused unnecessary costs
  3. 3 Whether the HS/YL dispute required the GLO application to be stayed

Ratio Decidendi

The GLO application was issued prematurely and pursued unreasonably, resulting in unnecessary hearings and costs for the VW and Dealer Defendants. The conduct was outside the norm for group litigation, justifying indemnity costs against the Relevant Claimants, except for the costs of the 27 November 2017 hearing, which are to be costs in the case.

Court Disposition

Applications for costs by VW and Dealer Defendants granted in part; indemnity costs ordered against Relevant Claimants except for 27 November 2017 hearing.

Orders

  • Relevant Claimants to pay VW and Dealer Defendants' costs of and occasioned by the GLO application, adjournment application, and costs application, limited to specified hearings, assessed on the indemnity basis.
  • Costs of the 27 November 2017 hearing to be costs in the case under paragraph 51 of the GLO.