[2025] EWHC 2307 (KB)

With the exception of Ford, the Lead and ALGLO defendants’ budgets are reasonably similar and range from approximately £560,000 (if the two Nissan entities are combined) to PCD whose claim is roughly £100,000 higher. Unlike the other defendants, PCD make allowance for experts’ fees which largely make up the difference.

The claimants’ offers distinguish between those defendants facing ten Sample Claimants and those facing five. £500,000 is offered for the former and £300,000 is offered for the latter. We do not think the provision for external expert evidence in the pleadings is reasonable and we think the claimants’ offer of £500,000 for defendants facing ten claimants is a reasonable one. Similarly, and allowing for slightly less opportunity for economies of scale, we consider the claimants’ offer of £300,000 to be reasonable for the defendants facing five claims.

In relation to Nissan Authorised Dealerships, the claimants’ offer treats them as if they were Non-ALGLO defendants which we do not think can be appropriate. Whilst the Renault Dealerships’ costs are within the Renault figures generally, we do not think that is reason essentially to preclude any additional sums being claimed by another ALGLO defendant. The assumptions are not clear in our view and, doing the best we can, we have allowed £20,000 for this phase.

For the Non-ALGLOs, there appeared to be two schools as to the amount of time required to review the statements of case. We say appeared because in our view there is little in the assumptions to explain the sort of fees estimated by Vauxhall, Volvo and FCA when compared with the others. For example, the limited involvement suggested by Vauxhall amounted to 53 hours together with £19,000 of counsels’ fees. In contrast Suzuki estimated 14 hours and £1,000 of counsel’s fees. The difference may depend upon the view taken as to the similarity of the exercise for Tranche 2 (and for which £5,000 was allowed). Suzuki were clearly mindful of that figure in their assumptions and have subsequently accepted the offer of £5,000 made to all Non-ALGLO defendants. We have not discerned any argument by those seeking higher fees as to why considerably higher sums will be required in this tranche. The nearest was Mr Griffiths’ submission on behalf of BMW (whose figures were closer to the Tranche 2 allowance in any event.) By his calculation, BMW had allowed for approximately 40 minutes to review each of the pleadings and the claimants’ offer reduced that time to 13 or so minutes. That argument does depend on treating each pleading as if it were the first time any pleading in this case had been seen. The likelihood is that the statements of case, at least within GLOs, and probably more generally, will have many similarities and the per proceedings calculation is not a sound guide to the work involved. Nonetheless we can see some limited scope for a need to consider specific points of distinction applicable to a claimant, which did not so readily arise at the Tranche 2 stage. Consequently, we have allowed an increase limited to 20% on the previous tranche’s allowance where the figures were not previously agreed.