What can we help you with today?
Steven Blair Milligan v Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC and others
Steven Blair Milligan v Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC and others
GP3/24
2 April 2025
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First Division
Overview
[1] This reclaiming motion (appeal) concerns two issues: the eligibility of Steven Milligan, to become a representative party for the purpose of bringing group proceedings; and the satisfaction of the criterion to bring group proceedings under section 20(6) of the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018.
[2] This action arises from the alleged fitting of unlawful defeat devices to the engines of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles, controlling the nitrogen oxide emissions during testing. Steven Milligan is one of a group of around 6,500 who wish to bring proceedings against Jaguar Land Rover for the unlawful fitting of such a defeat device to his vehicle.
[3] The court is not adjudicating on the issues in dispute between the parties but rather determining whether Steven Milligan is an appropriate person to be a representative party, and whether group proceedings are the best way of determining the issues between the parties.
Group Proceedings in Scotland
[4] In Scotland, a person, known as the “representative party”, is able to bring group proceedings on behalf of a group of people. They must apply to the court to be appointed as the representative party.
[5] Under the 2018 Act the court will consider numerous factors. These include the applicant’s expertise on the subject matter of the proceedings, their own interest in the proceedings, the benefit (financial or otherwise) derived from the proceedings, independence from the defenders of the proceedings, demonstration that the applicant will act fairly and in the interest of the group as a whole, and that they are able to meet the costs of litigation.
[6] Once a representative party has been appointed, they may bring group proceedings only if the court considers that all the claims within the group raise the same issues, whether in fact or law, and the representative party has made reasonable efforts to notify all potential members of the group about the proceedings.
The Lord Ordinary’s Decision
[7] In this case, Jaguar Land Rover objected to the appointment of Steven Milligan as a representative party. They considered that he did not demonstrate any expertise on the subject matter, the ability to litigate properly in a case of high factual and legal complexity, and sufficient capacity to make independent decisions in the face of diverging views and interests. Concern was also aired about the financial standing of Mr Milligan and his ability to meet expenses awards.
[8] The Lord Ordinary considered that the applicant satisfied the abilities and expertise required by the court. He is a member of the group with the same interest in the proceedings as any other group member. He is independent from the defenders and can be expected to act fairly in the interests of the group as a whole. He did not consider there to be a conflict of interest at this stage.
[9] In terms of funding, the Lord Ordinary considered that he was satisfied on the basis of an undertaking to provide funding by Quantum Claims that the applicant had the financial resources to meet any expenses awards.
[10] The Lord Ordinary was required to consider the application to bring group proceedings. The Lord Ordinary considered that the proceedings are the same as, or similar or related to each other despite the different makes, models and versions of vehicles. The point of group proceedings is to allow for the expeditious disposal of proceedings such as those at hand, and as such meets the requirements for the efficient administration of justice.
[11] The Lord Ordinary further considered that there was a sufficient case against Jaguar Land Rover. Any further issues of clarification that are required can be addressed at a later stage of the proceedings. In terms of the requirement of real prospects of success, the Lord Ordinary found that there was a sound evidential basis to proceed and that the written case demonstrates a real prospect of success.
[12] The Lord Ordinary authorised Mr Milligan to be the representative party for the purposes of the group proceedings. He thereafter granted permission for Mr Milligan as the representative party to bring group proceedings to be known as “Jaguar Land Rover Nox Emissions Group Proceedings.”
This Reclaiming Motion
[13] The defenders appeal against this decision of the Lord Ordinary. They contend that the Lord Ordinary erred in determining that the applicant had demonstrated he was a suitable person to be appointed as a representative party. Their argument is that the applicant must make a positive demonstration of their capabilities to execute their duties as a representative party. They also appeal against the decision that the applicant has demonstrated adequately he is able to fund the group proceedings.
[14] Separately, the defenders appeal against the decision of the Lord Ordinary for permission to bring group proceedings. They contend that there is not a sufficient case against the defenders.
The First Division will hear the appeal on 2 April 2025.