{"text":[[{"start":9.15,"text":"Several of the world’s biggest carmakers have defused a multibillion legal threat hanging over the industry as they largely fought off a mass legal action over claims they cheated on emissions tests for diesel vehicles."}],[{"start":21.75,"text":"The High Court in London on Friday rejected the bulk of allegations made on behalf of about 1.6mn motorists in the UK who sued manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Peugeot/Citroën, Renault and Nissan."}],[{"start":36.7,"text":"However, the ruling left the door open for targeted compensation claims. The court made “adverse findings in relation to certain specific strategies”, including by Peugeot/Citroën."}],[{"start":47.150000000000006,"text":"The case is among the largest and most complex cases in English legal history and one of the most aggressive attempts in the world to widen liability for “dieselgate” beyond Volkswagen."}],[{"start":59.150000000000006,"text":"The German carmaker admitted in 2015 to installing software in 11mn vehicles worldwide to make them appear more environmentally friendly than they were."}],[{"start":69.35000000000001,"text":"Lawyers acting for the UK motorists contended other manufacturers also installed “defeat devices” to manipulate tests for nitrogen oxide emissions, which are linked to health conditions including asthma, and can also form smog."}],[{"start":82.65,"text":"But carmakers countered that the controls were not designed to cheat tests, arguing the systems were needed to prevent problems such as stalling or overheating in particular driving conditions."}],[{"start":93.2,"text":"In a 369-page judgment on Friday, Lady Justice Sara Cockerill said: “There is no allegation that any of them contained a device which is the same as the VW prohibited defeat device at the centre of Dieselgate. Any thought that the answer to this case is obvious must therefore be put firmly to one side.”"}],[{"start":111.7,"text":"Summarising her findings, she said she “rejected most of the principal allegations advanced against the manufacturers whose vehicles were examined at trial”."}],[{"start":121,"text":"“In the majority of instances, the court found that the relevant strategy did not constitute a prohibited defeat device.”"}],[{"start":129.2,"text":"The judge found that to constitute an unlawful defeat device, it would need to actively detect that the vehicle was being tested, and deliberately perform better in the lab than on the road. This was not the case in nearly all of the systems examined by the court."}],[{"start":144.85,"text":"However, Cockerill made adverse findings about a Mercedes “coolant temperature manipulation” device and two systems used by Peugeot/Citroën."}],[{"start":154.45,"text":"Law firm Leigh Day, representing the claimants, said it was “considering whether to seek permission to appeal”."}],[{"start":161.64999999999998,"text":"“We welcome some of the judge’s findings, but we think important parts of the decision are disappointing not least because of the impact on the environmental and consumer protection,” senior partner Martyn Day said. "}],[{"start":173.79999999999998,"text":"Anna Varga, partner at law firm Pogust Goodhead, which also worked on the litigation, said: “The court has found that certain manufacturers installed unlawful defeat devices, but it also adopted a significantly narrower interpretation of the law than that applied elsewhere in Europe.”"}],[{"start":190.24999999999997,"text":"Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Stellantis, Nissan and Renault said they welcomed the decision, saying the court concluded their vehicles were largely compliant with European emissions legislation on defeat devices. "}],[{"start":202.69999999999996,"text":"Stellantis, which owns the Peugeot and Citroën brands, said it was considering appealing the “sole allegation upheld”. It said all its vehicles were compliant with regulations."}],[{"start":213.49999999999997,"text":"Mercedes-Benz added that it could potentially appeal a part of the judgment that said that one of its four sample vehicles was non-compliant in “one functionality”, which the company claimed had been remedied with a software update."}],[{"start":226.89999999999998,"text":"Renault said it would “now pursue the recovery of its legal costs from the large institutional insurers and hedge funds [that] backed these claims in the hope of a financial gain”."}],[{"start":236.79999999999998,"text":"The size of any payouts will be determined by a subsequent second-phase trial, though this is likely to be put on hold, pending appeals. A follow-up hearing is expected in September."}],[{"start":255.65,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1783902280_9745.mp3"}