Alex Not & Ors v Jaguar Land Rover Limited & Ors

This High Court decision is about how a very large product-related dispute should be managed, not who ultimately wins. Thousands of claimants said certain diesel Jaguar Land Rover vehicles had defective DPF systems that did not work properly in ordinary driving conditions.

The court decided that the claims should proceed under a Group Litigation Order, or GLO. It also settled a practical disagreement about what information claimants should provide early on, aiming to balance useful detail against the cost and burden of collecting it.

The claimants had bought, leased or otherwise acquired an interest in diesel JLR vehicles. They alleged that the vehicles’ DPF systems were defective because they did not function effectively in commonly encountered driving conditions. The judgment explains that DPF systems are designed to collect particulate matter and rely on effective regeneration cycles to burn off what has built up.

The alleged consequences were commercially significant. The pleaded case said the vehicles could face increased oil dilution, higher fuel consumption, increased engine wear, shortened service intervals and operational problems. In some situations, the engine management system could trigger limp mode or shut the engine down entirely. Those allegations formed the basis for a wide range of claims across the supply chain.

The causes of action described by the court included breach of contract, claims under consumer protection rules, claims under the Consumer Credit Act, breach of guarantee and breach of statutory duty. So this was not just a narrow technical dispute about a car part. It was framed as a broader dispute about product quality, information given to users, finance-linked relationships and losses said to flow from the alleged defect.

The main issue before the court was whether these claims should be managed under a Group Litigation Order. Even though the parties agreed that a GLO should be made, the court still had to decide for itself whether that was appropriate. The judgment notes that consent between the parties is not enough on its own.

Once the court concluded that a GLO was appropriate, the remaining issue was narrower but still important: what information should claimants be required to provide in the Schedule of Claimant Information. Two questions were disputed. First, should claimants have to explain the basis on which they believed a reported vehicle issue related to the DPF system? Second, should they have to state the total amount of their loss at that stage, or only approximate out-of-pocket expenses linked to the issues?

Those questions mattered because they went to proportionality. The court had to balance the defendants’ need for useful information against the cost and burden of collecting it from a very large claimant group.

The court decided that a GLO should be made. It pointed to the scale of the litigation, with about 42,000 claims issued on behalf of about 39,000 claimants, and the likelihood that more claimants and more claimant firms would join. The court considered that a group register, publicity and a cut-off date would all help manage the litigation efficiently.

The court also accepted that the claims involved common issues but that the exact causes of action and defendants would vary from claimant to claimant. That made a GLO suitable because common issues could be resolved in an organised way, including through lead cases.

On the disputed claimant information questions, the court included the question asking claimants to state the basis on which they believed reported issues related to the DPF system. The court said that information would help identify appropriate lead cases and struck a fair balance despite some extra cost. But on losses, the court preferred the narrower wording proposed by the claimants.

Instead of asking for total loss generally, the approved question asked for approximate expenses related to the issues, such as repair bills and increased servicing requirements.

If your business makes, imports, finances, leases or sells products, this decision is a reminder that recurring customer complaints can become a coordinated dispute very quickly. The legal theories may differ across customers, but common factual themes often drive the case: what the product was supposed to do, how it behaved in normal use, what customers were told and what losses followed.

The judgment also shows that courts want practical information early, not perfect information. A business facing repeated complaints should be able to identify the product models involved, the time periods affected, the nature of reported issues, what diagnostics or repairs were carried out, what customer-facing statements were made and what direct expenses customers say they incurred.

For businesses on the customer side, including SMEs with vehicle fleets, the case is a reminder to keep records if a product repeatedly underperforms. Purchase documents, finance agreements, service records, warning lights, repair invoices, downtime and correspondence with the seller or finance provider can all matter later.

The strongest practical lesson from this judgment is operational discipline. When complaints are repeated across a product range, businesses should assume that internal records may later be compared across many customers. That means your complaint handling, technical investigation and customer communications need to be consistent and easy to retrieve.

For retailers and finance businesses, it is especially important to understand where responsibility may be alleged to sit. In this case, the pleaded claims were spread across dealerships, finance defendants and the manufacturer side. That kind of multi-party structure is common where customers say a product was defective and the route to market involved sales, finance and warranties.

The judgment set a timetable for the group litigation rather than moving into the merits. It recorded that no substantive case management would take place until early 2026, and that a managing judge would be appointed in October 2025. The GLO order also set a cut-off structure for claims to be issued, served and entered on the group register, subject to later review.

That matters because in large disputes, deadlines around group entry, service and case management can shape who participates and how efficiently the litigation moves. Businesses involved in a large-scale dispute should not treat procedural dates as minor administration. They can affect exposure, evidence gathering and settlement strategy.