Judges rule ‘dieselgate' group action can proceed in Scotland
The case concerns legal action over allegations that Nissan and Renault fitted prohibited 'defeat devices' to diesel vehicles to get round emissions tests.
Joseph Mackay applied for permission to bring group proceedings on behalf of about 8,500 people who claim to have suffered loss as a result of the manufacturers' alleged behaviour.
The Lord Ordinary sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh previously granted permission for the group action to go ahead.
However, the various Nissan companies, described as the defenders, appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session to challenge that decision.
The Lord President Lord Pentland, sitting with Lady Wise and Lord Clark, has now refused the appeal, allowing the group action to proceed.
In order to begin group proceedings in Scotland, two initial applications must be made to the court, one to appoint a representative party and other for permission to bring the proposed group proceedings.
Nissan contended that Mr Mackay failed to demonstrate that he was an appropriate person to be appointed as the representative party.
They also argued that it was not shown that it would be more efficient for the claims to be brought as a group action rather than individually, nor that the proceedings had any real prospect of success.
In an opinion delivered by Lord Pentland on Tuesday, the judges said the Lord Ordinary was 'fully entitled' to conclude that the applicant was a 'suitable person to be authorised to act as the representative party in the proposed group proceedings'.
He wrote: 'In summary, the applicant had no interest in the proceedings other than his own claim; he was wholly independent of the defenders; there was nothing to suggest that he would act otherwise than fairly and adequately in the group's interests.'
The ruling notes that the Lord Ordinary's decision to authorise the bringing of group proceedings was a discretionary decision and that there is 'no justification' for the Inner House to interfere with it.
It also states that the Lord Ordinary was justified in concluding that there were 'real prospects of success' and that it would be more efficient for the claims to be brought collectively rather than individually.
Renault did not contest the Lord Ordinary's original decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The dark side of cryptocurrency
Andrew Bailey is right to distance the British financial system from cryptocurrency, but he is being too polite about it (Editorial, 29 July). Cryptocurrency is evil. Being speculative in nature, it serves no purpose as a useful currency, and being secretive, it facilitates international drug dealing, people trafficking and terrorism. In addition to helping destabilise our precarious world, it has a huge, unnecessary carbon footprint. It's time for our financial authorities to speak truth to MakepeaceNarberth, Pembrokeshire At my primary school in 1948 I was sent almost daily to the headmaster, who would give me two painful whacks on each of my hands – all for talking in class. I now appreciate that I simply suffered, well before my time, from an excess of 'oracy' (Letters, 1 August).Alan WoolleyWeybridge, Surrey With reference to the letter from Mike Lowcock about Prince Charles (31 July), the wearing of a sgian-dubh ('dagger' as you so tweely translated for your English readers) is legal when worn as part of the national dress of WestwoodEdinburgh Are any of the 472 white storks seen over London from 2016 to 2023 (Report, 4 August) evidence of assistance to the beleaguered NHS maternity services?David FellowsStorrington, West Sussex Our local tip here in Grantham (Letters, 30 July) has a picture of Margaret Thatcher hanging in its canteen. It's used as a HoganGrantham, Lincolnshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Top Gear
2 hours ago
- Top Gear
Jeep Avenger Review 2025
- Page continues below There's also the Ford Puma, Nissan Juke, (excellent) Renault 4, Toyota Yaris Cross, and VW T-Cross to name but five more in a highly congested sector, some of which get conventional petrol engines, some with full electricity, and some with the option of both. None can match the Jeep's rough-ground chops, though. All these brands on the same platform... boring clones? This may have started life as the shared platform of several others, but Jeep did a lot of extracurricular homework. It wanted shorter front and rear overhangs for better off-road work, so it redesigned the crash structures at the nose and tail, to be just as effective but more compact. That's an expensive job. It altered the inner wings for bigger-diameter tyres and more wheel travel. It raised the rear seat for extra legroom. It changed the glass. It widened the tailgate aperture for easier loading. Then Jeep grabbed the latest electrical hardware – all-new (not just modified) permanent-magnet motor, new battery cells, new inverter. Those bits have been cascaded to the other Stellantis cars. The on-road (and off-road) dynamics have a different flavour too. Advertisement - Page continues below Fair enough. Looks pretty handsome, too. The Avenger is a blocky looking thing - and as Jeep's design boss told boxy is the brand's future - but it's largely free of pointless aggression. At least in all respects other than the name. Like too many SUVs, it sounds like some shoot'em'up computer game. We won't mention a 1970s Hillman. The design wraps up lots of current and past Jeep cues but riffs them into something quite progressive. Part of what makes it a proper Jeep is the body protection. The lamps and painted sheet metal are inset from the plastic all round the perimeter, so those cheap plastic parts really do have a sacrificial role against gentle scrapes. This of course isn't handy only when you're greenlaning into the deep countryside for a spot of wild camping. It's also excellent at fending off the biffs of urban manoeuvres. By the same token, short overhangs and decent ground clearance (a minimum of 200mm, and 230mm under the battery) mean strong off-road creds but also a particularly nonchalant attitude to speed bumps. Water fording is 230mm, which is halfway up your shins and would count as a pretty adventurous puddle on the road. And there's an even more adventurous one now, which we'll get to in a bit. Unsurprisingly everything we've said so far about the dimensions and design means it'll slot perfectly into urban life, and that of course is where its owners will mostly be. So it's just a feeble city runabout? Actually, no. At launch the Avenger was available with one electric powertrain and one electric powertrain alone: 51kWh battery, 154bhp motor; 249-mile WLTP range. You'll probably get more than 200 real world. With those numbers underneath you, you'll be happy to burst out beyond the ring-road. And anyway, Jeep has since introduced one base petrol and two hybrid powertrains. The former gets a 1.2-litre 99bhp three-cylinder engine, while the first of the e-hybrids adds a 28bhp e-motor and 0.9kWh battery for improved efficiency. Skip 25 photos in the image carousel and continue reading Turn on Javascript to see all the available pictures. 1 / 25 Then there's the 4xe, pictured above, which adds another 28bhp e-motor onto the rear axle for a total of 143bhp, all-wheel drive and plenty more off-road nous, including extra protective cladding, increased approach and departure angles and wading capability, plus extra ground clearance and multi-link rear suspension. Interesting. How much does it cost? Prices start from £26,050 for the entry petrol, £27,050 for the e-Hybrid, £29,999 for the full electric, and £31,219 for the 4xe. Seems reasonable enough. Click through to the Buying tab for the full lowdown. What's the verdict? ' A car designed to work reasonably well on moderate off-road trails ends up working really well in its precise opposite ' The Avenger is a likeable car. It's a good looking thing which helps, but sitting on the same platform and sharing the same powertrains as… *checks notes* many, many others within the Stellantis megacorp, it could have just been a copycat job. But it's not. It's got plenty of personality, tapping into Jeep's heritage while offering mass market appeal thanks to the multitude of powertrain options. It's perhaps at its best in town, small and manoeuvrable and with a boxy outline that helps you judge corners. The bash-resistant exterior and speedbump-happy suspension also help calm your nerves. But it's more than capable of heading beyond the city walls too, even if it's at its happiest within them. So a car designed to work reasonably well on moderate off-road trails ends up working really well in its precise opposite. The 4xe attempts to claw some of that rufty tuftiness back, but this is a car better suited to town than hardcore off-roading.
Daily Record
3 hours ago
- Daily Record
Stirling hotel manager voices support for tourist tax if funds are used wisely
Stirling Council is currently seeking feedback on the draft Visitor Levy scheme for the area, after it launched a public consultation on the issue last month. The manager of one of Stirling's most popular hotels has suggested that the city's proposed ' tourist tax ' on overnight stays could be beneficial, provided the funds raised are used appropriately. Stirling Council is currently seeking public opinion on the draft Visitor Levy scheme for the area, following a public consultation launched last month. Under new powers granted by the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, the draft scheme proposes a five per cent levy on overnight stays across all forms of paid visitor accommodation within the Stirling Council area. The scheme would include several exemptions specific to Stirling, including residents of Stirling Council, those receiving carers' allowance and visitors staying more than seven nights (through reimbursement), as well as a site exemption scheme for charitable and educational organisations, where the trip's primary purpose is charitable or educational. Barry Makin, the general manager of Sir Andy Murray's Cromlix Hotel, in Kinbuck, believes the move could be positive – provided the money is "well spent" and used locally. Speaking to the Stirling Observer, Mr Makin said: "I think the theory behind the levy is good in principle, if the money is spent well locally to improve things for visitors and also for local people." He further commented: "I've seen how it can work successfully in other European countries. In my opinion it's essential that the levy charge is clear to bookers at the point of booking and not just on the final bill so it's clear that this isn't a cost added by the hotel, but is something all travellers to Stirling would encounter." Local residents and other interested parties are invited to share their thoughts on the draft scheme via an online survey, with paper versions also available in Stirling Council libraries, until October 12. Businesses, accommodation providers, locals and tourists alike are also encouraged to provide feedback on the proposals at drop-in sessions scheduled across Stirling in September. The sessions include: Stirling's Albert Halls on September 9, from 11am-6pm; The John McLintock Hall, Balfron, on September 11, from 10am–6pm; Drymen Village hall on September 17, from 10am-6pm; Killin's McLaren Hall on September 23, from 10am-6pm; and Callander Youth Project Trust on September 29, from 10am-6pm. Last month, Stirling Council Leader, Cllr Gerry McGarvey, urged everyone, from accommodation providers to residents and visitors, to provide feedback on the scheme to ensure it reflects the needs of all of Stirling. If approved, the 'tourist tax' would come into effect from June 1, 2027, and would apply to bookings made on or after January 1, 2027. In May, we reported that a hospitality trade body had warned that the proposed 'tourist tax' could potentially damage tourism in the region. Leon Thompson, Executive Director of UK Hospitality Scotland, said: "Hospitality and tourism is so important to Stirling, as a major employer and driver of the local economy. "That economic and social contribution to our communities must be protected and we fundamentally believe that introducing a visitor levy could harm tourism in Stirling. "That's why Stirling Council should carry out a detailed impact assessment to understand the potential impact on visitors, tourism and the economy, before it embarks further on potentially introducing a levy." That came after the Association of Scotland's Self-Caterers (ASSC) said last December that the introduction of a visitor levy scheme on tourists in Stirling would mean that small businesses could become "de-facto unpaid tax collectors". Fiona Campbell, ASSC chief executive, said the implementation of the tax must "be done right". In April, a campaign group against the proposals warned the move could see the city's hospitality sector left with high levels of cancellations. The Back British Holidays campaign has issued a warning that up to 21% of potential holidaymakers might cancel their trips due to the extra tariff. They also stated that another 21% would cut back on their spending during their holiday. The council previously estimated that a five per cent levy could generate as much as £7.5million.
