[2025] EWHC 1931 (KB)

Ford. The relevant witness statement is that of Marcus Davies. Other than parameters, the first set of redactions relates to a calibration process guide which illustrates the iterative process by which calibration would be developed. The redacted illustration is extraordinarily high level, and is plainly not ‘highly confidential’ or remotely useful to third parties. It would be surprising if it did not reflect the type of iterative design process understood and utilised by engineering design departments around the world. The second set of redactions relates to interactions with various authorities about NOx related testing. The basis upon which the narrative description of the testing/re-testing could be said to be highly confidential is wholly unclear. There is no particular technical detail or trade secret referred to which could be said to be confidential. Moreover, as Ms Dannreuther for the Claimants demonstrated in submissions, at least some of the technical substance relating to Ford’s explanation as to why it got higher than expected NOx results from testing is already in the public domain. None of the redactions were justified.

Nissan. Other than in respect of parameters, all the redactions from each of the Nissan witness statements related to descriptions of, and even a mere reference to the phrase, ‘ROM-DR’. ROM-DR is the name given to a type of design development review meeting. The evidence relating to these meetings within the witness evidence is anodyne. A typical example of redacted text is:

“ROM-DR: in these meetings, performance was evaluated to develop calibration and assess achievements in driveability, emissions, combustion noise and software. Reports from these areas were reviewed in ROM-DR meetings to determine if the calibration could be industrialised for use in the next lot. Any issues would be flagged for further investigation or follow-up. However, decisions regarding calibration parameter content (i.e. the specific tuning of control maps and strategies) were the responsibility of the Calibration team leadership, typically a manager or Senior Calibration Engineer, and were handled outside of the ROM-DR process.”

There is nothing within this text that could conceivably be regarded as so unique to Nissan that it might constitute some sort of highly confidential trade secret. Ms Howard KC, for Nissan, fairly accepted redactions such as this were over-zealous. The redactions relating to general descriptions of what happened during the ROM-DR process were plainly not justified (irrespective of whether some parts of the ROM-DR related disclosure may include confidential but irrelevant information which Nissan would be entitled to keep confidential). One further redaction related to an extremely anodyne reference, at an extremely high level, to the financial aspects of the (now historic) Renault/Nissan alliance. It would be surprising if anything turned on the evidence which is of marginal relevance; but if it did need to be in evidence, because it was relevant, it should not have been redacted.