Alex Not & Ors v Jaguar Land Rover Limited & Ors

This is the hearing of the Claimants’ application for a Group Litigation Order (“GLO”). The application is supported by the fourth witness statement of Polly Blenkin dated 13 August 2024.

The Claimants bought, leased or otherwise acquired an interest in diesel Jaguar Land Rover (“JLR”) vehicles which are alleged to suffer from various defects, including defective Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”) systems. These claims are distinct and separate from those pursued against a number of the same Defendants in relation to the alleged inclusion of NOx emissions defeat devices (the “JLR NOx Emissions Litigation”).

Diesel vehicles are fitted with a filter to collect and reduce harmful particulate matter. These filters are known as DPFs. A DPF is located in a car’s exhaust and works, in conjunction with the wider DPF system, to capture and store the particulate matter produced by incomplete or less than fully efficient combustion of diesel fuel.

An essential aspect of a DPF system is effective regeneration, which involves heating the exhaust gas and the DPF to burn off the accumulated particulate matter stored within the DPF. Regular and effective regeneration cycles are necessary to prevent the build-up of particulate matter within the DPF, which could otherwise block the DPF and impair its functionality and/or performance.

The central allegation in this case is that the DPF systems in the Claimants’ vehicles (the “Subject Vehicles”) were and still are defective, in that the systems did not and/or do not function effectively during commonly encountered driving conditions. As a result of the defective DPF systems, the vehicles suffered from a number of adverse effects. These included being exposed to the risk of material engine damage, increased oil dilution, fuel consumption and engine wear and tear, reduced service intervals and various operational difficulties. As to the latter, in certain circumstances problems with the DPF system can cause the engine management system to trigger “Limp Home Mode”, which limits the speed of the vehicle to a crawling pace or shuts the engine down entirely.

The claims have been set out in draft Generic Particulars of Claim which raise the following causes of action:

England and Wales is not the only jurisdiction in which such claims are being pursued. In the course of the hearing I was told that similar claims are being advanced on behalf of claimants in America and in Australia.

As is to be expected in litigation of this kind there has been a great deal of contact and co-operation between the parties prior to this application being made. An agreed procedural chronology was included in the core bundle. The following summary is taken from the Claimants’ skeleton argument:

The fact that the parties agree a GLO should be made is not determinative of the issue. I recently summarised the applicable principles in Hammon & Ors v University College London [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB) and do not propose to rehearse them again. In any event CPR 19.22 (2) (d) makes it clear that a GLO may only be made in the King’s Bench Division with the consent of the President of the Division.

I have concluded that it is appropriate to make a GLO for the conduct of this litigation. There are a number of factors which point to this conclusion.

Firstly, approximately 42,000 claims have been issued on behalf of approximately 39,000 Claimants. I am satisfied that it is likely that more claimants will join the Litigation, not least given that the Subject Vehicles involve a range of models which were acquired from 2014 onwards and remain in market circulation. Indeed, the parties estimate that over a million current and former owners of Subject Vehicles might be eligible to join the Litigation. In the circumstances, establishment of a Group Register, the publicising of the GLO and a suitable cut-off date are therefore all valuable case management features of a GLO which will further the Overriding Objective.

Secondly, I am satisfied that other Claimant Firms are likely to bring claims which fall within the scope of the proposed GLO. The Claimants have already identified three such firms of which they are aware. The case management mechanism of appointing Lead Solicitors and establishing the Claimant Steering Committee and the Claimant Solicitors’ Group would therefore provide an effective and cost efficient mechanism for managing any further claims advanced by any such firms in the Litigation.

Thirdly, given the nature of the Litigation, I am satisfied the relevant causes of action and the Defendants against whom those causes of action lie, will differ depending on the specific circumstances of each Claimant. In the circumstances a GLO would provide a suitable mechanism for the resolution of the GLO Issues, including the level of damages, in an effective manner, and through the identification of Lead Cases.

It is also of some relevance that similar claims being pursued in other jurisdictions such as America and Australia are being managed in an equivalent manner.

Having received my recommendation, the President of the King’s Bench Division has confirmed that she is prepared to agree with it and has provided her consent to the making of a GLO order.

The terms of the proposed GLO are, with one small exception, agreed between the parties and are in conventional form. The only remaining dispute relates to the questions contained in the Schedule of Claimant Information (“SOCI”) which forms schedule 2 to the proposed GLO order.

The parties have agreed that SOCIs should be provided for only a 25% sample of the Claimant cohort and have agreed the wording for all questions save for two.

The first dispute is whether question 41 of the draft SOCI should be included or not. The Defendants require the question to be included and drafted as follows:

On behalf of the Claimants Mr Miletic submitted that the Defendants’ proposals will increase the burden on the Claimants and overall costs disproportionately, without any commensurate benefit to case management progression or the ability to select lead cases. He pointed out that if one were to take an hourly rate of £175 for a paralegal, each extra 15 minutes in dealing with a query from a client on a particular question would cost around £546,875 when extrapolated across 25% of the group. In the circumstances he suggested a balance needs to be struck in relation to SOCIs, recognising that they are not intended to be a substitute for or serve the same purpose as individual pleadings and referred to the observations of Senior Master Fontaine in the case of Cavallari v Mercedes-Benz Group[2023] EWHC 512 (KB):

“I recognise that is (sic) necessary to strike a proportionate balance between:

i)

including what is strictly necessary in terms of specifying a complete cause of action, assisting the parties and/or the Managing Judge to identify potential lead cases, and providing the Defendants with sufficient information to obtain a reasonably informed view about the likely quantum of claims; and

ii)

keeping the exercise as straightforward as possible, so that excessive and costly queries are kept to a minimum, and where possible more detailed information be provided at a later stage in proceedings, possibly by a more limited group of Claimants, when identifying an appropriate pool of Claimants from which to identify potential lead claimants.”

Mr Miletic pointed out that question 38 requests the Claimants to identify any issues experienced with their vehicle if known.

On behalf of the JLR Defendants Mr Kinnier KC submitted that without this information, the response to the previous question is of very limited use. He made the point that the Claimants must know why they think any problems they allege are attributable to the DPF, otherwise they could not have signed up to bring a claim based on alleged problems with the DPF. Question 40 was agreed in the following terms:

Mr Kinnier KC did not accept the point that had been made by Milberg in correspondence and developed by Mr Miletic in argument, that this was not a matter individual Claimants could comment on and was more properly a matter for expert evidence, as the point of the question was to establish the factual basis for the Claimant’s belief.

The second dispute concerns the drafting of question 43 of the draft SOCI. The Defendants propose the wording, “Please state the total amount of your loss, even if it is an approximate amount at this stage”.

Mr Miletic submitted that this was not an appropriate question for the SOCI stage as the question of loss is likely to be a complicated issue, and again would require expert evidence and legal argument. He also pointed out that the calculation of damages claimed will vary under each cause of action and include, for example, the difference in value between the Subject Vehicles as warranted and their actual value, the accelerated depreciation in value of the Subject Vehicles, the costs of additional fuel consumption, servicing and maintenance and damages for distress, disappointment and inconvenience. Further, the question of loss will also require consideration by the Court of relevant discounts sought under CPUT and/or the CCA, on which the lay clients cannot be expected to have a view which will be of assistance.

In the circumstances, Mr Miletic submitted that the Defendants’ question recognised that the estimate of loss would be ‘approximate’ in any event, and that the cost and resources required to provide such a figure at this stage is disproportionate.

In the spirit of compromise Mr Miletic proposed the wording, “If you have incurred expenses related to the issue/s identified, such as repair bills and increased servicing requirements, please state the approximate total amount of those expenses.”.

Mr Kinnier KC expressed the concern that the Claimants have not yet particularised their losses or even set out in any detail how their losses might be calculated. He suggested that the Claimants must know, at least roughly, the financial losses the alleged DPF problems have caused them. If so, they should say so at this stage so the JLR Defendants can begin to quantify the claims.

On behalf of the Finance Defendants Mr Popplewell supported the submissions made by Mr Kinnier KC.

I have concluded that question 41 should be included in the SOCI and that the Claimants’ formulation of question 43 should be preferred.

My reasons can be shortly stated. I agree with Mr Kinnier KC that question 41 follows on naturally from question 40. The information must be known to the Claimants and the answers will assist the Defendants identify appropriate lead cases.

The whole point of the SOCIs is to avoid the necessity of full pleadings. I accept that the inclusion of the question may lead to some increased cost. However that cost must be seen in context. The full cost of pleading the claims in the traditional way would be vastly more expensive and it has been agreed between the parties that the SOCIs will be restricted to a sample of 25% of the Claimant cohort. The inclusion of the question strikes the appropriate balance between the provision of information and the cost of providing it having regard to purpose it is required for.

As to the form of question 43, I agree with Mr Miletic that the Defendants’ formulation would be difficult for many Claimants to answer with any degree of confidence. The Claimants formation would enable the provision of the out of pocket losses claimed by each Claimant which they should be in a position to provide. The Defendants accept that any information provided as to other heads of loss would be approximate only.

In the circumstances this strikes the right balance between providing useful hard information in relation to the valuation of the claims and speculative soft information.

All parties are agreed that no substantive case management will take place until early 2026. In the circumstances I have decided, in consultation with the President of the King’s Bench Division, that the identity of the managing judge need not be provided now. The order should provide that a manging judge will be appointed in October 2025.

I attach to this judgment as appendix 1 a final version of the GLO order.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED

BLACK HORSE LIMITED trading as Jaguar Financial Services and trading as Land Rover Financial Services

LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED trading as Jaguar Contract Hire and trading as Land Rover Contract Hire

AUTHORISED DEALERSHIPS as listed at Schedule 4 to this Order

JAGUAR LAND ROVER AUTOMOTIVE PLC

JAGUAR LAND ROVER HOLDINGS LIMITED

“Authorised Dealerships” refer to those motor vehicle dealerships which are or were authorised by the First Defendant to sell and/or supply Subject Vehicles in England & Wales.

"Claim(s)" as defined in paragraph 1 above,and "Claim Form(s)" shall be read throughout as excluding counterclaims.

"Claimant Firm” means the Lead Claimant Solicitors, the Claimant Steering Committee, the Claimants’ Solicitors Group or a solicitor firm instructed by 20 or more Claimants in The JLR DPF Group Litigation, or a combination of them as the context requires.

"Claimants"are those who bought or otherwise acquired or have had an interest in a Subject Vehicle and whose details will be or are included on the Group Register in the manner and under the terms set out in paragraphs 25 and following below. Pending the establishment of the Group Register, the Claimants are those claimants listed on the Claim Forms listed at Schedule 5.

The "Claimant Steering Committee" is made up ofMilberg London LLP and Leigh Day. The Court and the Defendants will be informed within 21 days of any changes to the membership of the Claimant Steering Committee. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, other firms may deal directly with the Defendants and the Court, but only in relation to individual matters concerning the Claimants they represent.

A "Claimants’ Solicitors Group" may be formed should other solicitors be instructed by 20 or more Claimants in The JLR DPF Group Litigation and in order toprovide a mechanism for the Lead Claimant Solicitors and/or Claimant Steering Committee to liaise with other firms representing Claimants including with respect to how the claims are best progressed. If a Claimants’ Solicitors Group is formed, the Lead Claimant Solicitors will notify the Defendants within 28 days and provide a membership list of the relevant firms. The Court and the Defendants will be informed within 28 days of any changes to the membership of the Claimants’ Solicitors Group.

The "Defendants" are identified in the heading to this Order, of which:

"GLO Issues" are the common or related issues of fact or law which are identified in Schedule 1 hereto, as may be amended from time to time.

“Defendant Solicitors” means CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP for the Manufacturer Defendant and the Authorised Dealership Defendants identified as such in Schedule 4, Linklaters LLP for the Second and Third Defendant, and other law firms representing Authorised Dealership Defendants.

“Defendant Solicitors Email Group” means the email addresses constituting the same, as varied from time to time by notice in writing from the relevant party to Lead Claimant Solicitors and the Defendant Solicitors (as applicable), which as at the date of the date of this order are as follows:

"Lead Case" means a case which, following its selection as a Lead Case, alone or together with other such cases is intended to dispose, so far as possible, of issues (primarily but not limited to the GLO Issues) between the parties to this litigation but subject to CPR 19.23(1).

"Lead Claimant Solicitors" means Milberg London LLP.

"Management Court" is the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL.

"Managing Judge" is such Judge nominated from time to time to hear, if possible, all pre-trial applications in this litigation and to conduct the trial.

"Managing Master" is the Senior Master, or such other Master nominated from time to time to hear any pre-trial applications in this litigation that are not suitable to be dealt with by the Managing Judge and are released thereto by the Managing Judge.

“Subject Vehicles” are the diesel Jaguar Land Rover vehicle models listed in Schedule 8 to this Order.

Documentation

All documents (including Claim Forms, case statements, applications and witness statements) filed with the Managing Court in respect of a Claim which is the subject of this Order shall be marked with the short title of the Claim and shall be marked in the top left -hand corner "The JLR DPF Group Litigation”.

Defendant Solicitors

Any correspondence to be addressed to the Defendants shall be addressed to the appropriate Defendant Solicitors, save for Defendants not represented by the Defendant Solicitors, in which case correspondence should be directed to the Defendant’s alternative solicitors or direct to the Defendant.

Future Claims

All future Claims to which this Order applies by virtue of paragraph 1 must be issued out of the Management Court and, provided the Standard Minimum Requirements are met (as set out at paragraph 41 below), be entered on the Group Register.

Transfer of Existing Proceedings and Notices of Change

Any existing claim: (i) to which this Order applies by virtue of paragraph 1 above; and (ii) which is proceeding other than in the Management Court, is to be transferred forthwith to the Management Court. Solicitors for the parties are to co­operate in identifying such Claims, including in accordance with paragraph 23 below. On identification of such Claims, the Lead Claimant Solicitors are to send a copy of this Order to each transferring Court. Notices of Transfer in accordance with paragraph 4.1 of CPR PD30 are hereby dispensed with; and provided that each such Claim meets the Standard Minimum Requirements (as set out in paragraph 41 below) be entered forthwith onto the Group Register in accordance with the terms of this Order and CPR 19.22(3)(a)(i) and (iii).

If any Defendant is or has been served with a Claim Form for one or more Claims falling within paragraph 1 of this Order, other than by one of the firms which is a member of the Claimants’ Solicitors Group, then the Defendant shall ensure that the Lead Claimant Solicitors are informed of the name of the Claimant(s) on the Claim Form, the Claimants’ solicitors (if any) and all available contact details of the named Claimant and/or the Claimants’ solicitors (if any), within 28 days of such service.

The requirement to file individual Notices of Change pursuant to CPR 42.2 where a Claimant changes legal representation is hereby dispensed with and replaced by the obligation to file a list in the form attached at Schedule 6 to this Order at the same time as the first iteration of the Group Register is served under paragraph 25 below and thereafter at the same time as service of the updated Group Register in accordance with paragraph 32. This paragraph does not apply to any Lead Cases, as to which CPR 42.2 will continue to apply.

The Group Register

A Group Register, on which details are to be entered of the Claims that are subject to this and subsequent orders in this litigation and that comply with the Standard Minimum Requirements as set out in paragraph 41 below, shall be set up and managed by the Lead Claimant Solicitors in accordance with this Order. The Lead Claimant Solicitors will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the Group Register in respect of all Claimants. The Claimant Firms will use their best endeavours to ensure that there is no duplication of claims in the Group Register.

All issued Claim Forms to which this Order relates, and which have not already been served, shall be served by the Claimant Firm on the Defendants, which for the Defendant Solicitors shall be via email to the Defendant Solicitors Email Group, by no later than 4 p.m. on 16 January 2025.

The Lead Claimant Solicitors will serve a Master Duplicate Ledger (in the form set out at Schedule 9 to this Order) at the same time as the first iteration of the Group Register (paragraph 30) which identifies duplicate claims on the Claim Forms and details which Claim Form that client will be relying upon. The Claimants are not obliged to amend the Claim Forms to remove duplicate claims that have been identified on the Master Duplicate Ledger.

The Group Register shall be established by the Lead Claimant Solicitors no later than by 4 p.m. on 28 March 2025. It is a condition of being entered on the Group Register that each Claimant has complied with the Standard Minimum Requirements set out at paragraph 41 below.

Subject to paragraph 30, the following details shall be recorded in respect of each Claim which is added to the Group Register:

The details listed in paragraph 29(c) shall be recorded in respect of each Claim added to the Group Register as soon as practicable and no later than the third version of the Group Register produced in accordance with paragraph 32.

The Lead Claimant Solicitors shall serve an electronic copy of the Group Register in Excel format on all Defendants within 14 days of its establishment. For the avoidance of doubt, the Lead Claimant Solicitors are permitted to serve an electronic copy of the Group Register by post.

The Lead Claimant Solicitors shall review and update the Group Register every 4 months, the first such review to take place on the first working day 4 months after the Group Register is served in accordance with paragraph 30 above. The Lead Claimant Solicitors shall serve an electronic copy of the Group Register in Excel format on all Defendants within 14 days of each such update.

Where an amendment has been made to an existing entry on the Group Register, the amendments should be identified in red text. The Defendants may object to amendments in accordance with paragraph 34 below. If no objection is made, the next updated Group Register (if a further version is served) shall convert such amendment from red to black text.

Subject to paragraph 35, any of the Defendants may give written Notice of Objection to the Lead Claimant Solicitors in respect of any Claim that has been entered on the Group Register, or as to the accuracy of any other information entered thereon, within 4 months of the service of the version of the Group Register in which the Claim or information is included for the first time, stating the nature of the objection and the ground(s) for it. In the absence of written confirmation within 4 months of the Notice of Objection that the objection has been accepted by the Lead Claimant Solicitors, any of the Defendants may apply to the Management Court for determination of the issue. Such a Notice of Objection shall not affect the individual Claimant’s entitlement to keep their relevant Claim on the Group Register unless and until the Court directs otherwise.

The earliest the Defendants may give written Notice of Objection to the Lead Claimant Solicitors in respect of any Claim where the nature of the objection and the ground(s) for it concern the omission of the details at paragraph 29(c), is within 4 months of the service of the third version of the Group Register.

The parties shall otherwise be permitted to apply to the Management Court to remove a Claimant’s Claim from the Group Register where there are appropriate grounds for doing so.

A Claimant’s Claim shall remain on the Group Register until such time as they serve a Notice of Discontinuance in accordance with paragraph 38 below or, if required, obtain permission to discontinue, or if the Claim is otherwise disposed of prior to trial, or if the Court orders its removal. In any such event, the Claimant’s Claim shall be removed from the Group Register on the expiration of the last day of the period of account during which Notice of Discontinuance or permission to discontinue is given or the effective date of disposal occurred. For these purposes, the period of account shall be each period of 4 months commencing with the date on which the Group Register is served.

For the purposes of CPR 38.2(2)(c), consent to discontinue any Claim given by the other Claimants may be given by the Lead Claimant Solicitors. Pursuant to CPR 38.3, after obtaining consent to discontinue a Claim, the Claimant’s legal representatives must file a list in the form attached at Schedule 7 to this Order along with the Notice of Discontinuance and serve it on the Defendants and notify the Lead Claimant Solicitors. This paragraph does not apply to any Lead Cases, as to which paragraph 40 of this Order will continue to apply.

The Lead Claimant Solicitors shall, as a schedule to the Group Register, maintain a list called the "Inactive Claims Register" detailing:

There shall be no discontinuation of any Claim selected as a Lead Case unless permission is given by the Court following application on notice to all parties.

Standard Minimum Requirements

The Standard Minimum Requirements for entry of a Claim onto the Group Register in accordance with paragraph 28 above are as follows:

Schedules of Information

Subject to paragraph 44 below and any Party being at liberty to apply to the Court for an order requiring for further Schedules of Information to be served, 25% of the Claimants (to be selected on a random basis) who, as of the date of this Order, have issued proceedings to which this Order applies by virtue of paragraph 1 above and which (a) meet the Standard Minimum Requirements for entry on the Group Register, and (b) have been entered on the Group Register, shall serve an electronic copy of a Schedule of Information in the form set out in Schedule 2 and in Excel format on all Defendants, as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event in accordance with the following timetable:

The information to be provided in the Schedule of Information is to be provided to the best of each Claimant's knowledge and belief and the Statement of Truth shall be signed by the Claimants or their legal representative.

The time for a Claimant to serve a Schedule of Information in relation to their Claim shall be suspended pending resolution of a Notice of Objection which is raised for that Claim in accordance with paragraph 34 above.

Where joint Claimants (i.e. joint owners or lessees) claim in respect of the same Subject Vehicle and in respect of the same period of ownership, they may serve a single Schedule of Information containing the information in respect of each Claimant.

As to the updating of Schedules of Information, unless the Court orders otherwise, no Claimants are required to amend a Schedule of Information in respect of their Claim(s) in the event of change of information.

Statements of Case

The Claimants shall file and serve Generic Particulars of Claim by 4 p.m. on 28 February 2025.

The Manufacturer Defendant shall file and serve a Generic Defence by 4 p.m.on 31 July 2025.

The Finance Defendants and the Authorised Dealership Defendants shall each file and serve a Generic Defence by 4 p.m. on 12 September 2025.

The Claimants shall, if so advised, file and serve a Generic Reply to the Generic Defence of the Manufacturer Defendant by 4 p.m. on 31 October 2025.

The Claimants shall, if so advised, file and serve Generic Replies to the Generic Defences of the Finance Defendantsand Authorised Dealership Defendants by 4 p.m. on 30 November 2025.

Provisions for Costs Sharing and for Costs on Settlement or Discontinuance

Save as otherwise ordered, the liabilities for costs for the Claims are to be determined in the following manner:

Each Claimant is severally liable for a share of the Commons Costs as provided for at paragraph 52(d) above, or as the Court may order otherwise, to be determined as follows:

No further work in relation to the GLO Issues shall be undertaken by any legal representative of any Claimant other than the Lead Claimant Solicitors, their servants or their agents unless authorised by the Lead Claimant Solicitors; and no liability for Common Costs in relation to such work in the absence of such authorisation shall arise as between the Claimants or between the parties.

Where any Claim is nominated or selected as a Lead Case (or if applicable a reserve Lead Case) then, for the period of that claim’s nomination or selection:

Publicity

The making of this Order, and an invitation to prospective Claimants to consider joining The JLR DPF Group Litigation, shall be advertised by the Lead Claimant Solicitors in the form set out at Schedule 3 to this Order. The Lead Claimant Solicitors shall place appropriate notices of the making of the GLO on their own website, in the Law Society Gazette, and national and regional newspapers as agreed between the parties or otherwise determined by the Court. Nothing in this Order is intended to restrict the Claimant Firms from otherwise publicising their involvement in The JLR DPF Group Litigation, the costs of which shall not be recoverable from the Defendants.

Cut-off Date

In order to be entitled to be entered on to the Group Register, a Claim which falls within the scope of this Order must have been included on a Claim Form issued by 4 p.m. on 18 August 2025and served on the Defendants within 7 days of receipt of the sealed Claim Form from the Court, which for the Defendant Solicitors shall be via email to the Defendant Solicitors Email Group. The final date on which such Claims must be entered on to the Group Register will be 4 p.m. on 18 November 2025, although the cut-off date shall be subject to review at the Case Management Conference provided for at paragraph 60 below.

Extensions of Time

The parties may, by prior agreement in writing, extend the time for directions, in any Order relating to The JLR DPF Group Litigation, by up to 28 days and without the need to apply to the Court. Beyond that 28-day period, any agreed extension of time must be submitted to the Court by email including a brief explanation of the reasons, confirmation that it will not prejudice any hearing date and with a draft Consent Order in word format. The Court will then consider whether a formal Application and/or hearing is necessary.

Further Case Management

A copy of this Order shall be lodged with:

There shall be an initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Managing Judge or Managing Master on the first open date after 30 November 2025, with a time estimate of 2 days, for which purpose the parties are to apply jointly to King’s Bench Listing.

The purpose of the CMC provided for in paragraph 60 shall be for the Managing Judge, or the Managing Master if a Managing Judge has not been appointed, to provide further directions for the progress of this litigation.

In preparation for the CMC provided for in paragraph 60:

Authorised Dealerships

The Manufacturer and/or Authorised DealershipDefendants shall by 4pm on 23 December 2024 provide:

In circumstances where the Claimants identify a further potential Authorised Dealership not listed in Schedule 4 to this Order, and the Lead Claimant Solicitors write to the relevant Defendants’ Solicitors requesting clarification as to the status of that dealership, the Manufacturer and/or Authorised DealershipDefendants shall provide the information listed in paragraph 63 above (as relevant) within 35 days of receipt of that request.

Costs

Costs of the Application for a GLO shall be in the case.

Permission to Restore

The parties have permission to restore.

The Schedule of Information referred to at paragraphs 42 - 44 (on pages 11 and 12 of this Order) is as follows:

List of Authorised Dealership Defendants

KB-2023-002094

KB-2023-004189

KB-2023-004472

KB-2023-004814

KB-2024-000302

KB-2024-000958

KB-2024-001708

KB-2024-002665

Claim No: [•]

ADDRESSEES OF FIRM(S) THAT IS BEING REPLACED:

ADDRESSES OF FIRM(S) INSTRUCTED TO WHICH DOCUMENTS ABOUT THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT:

Notice of Discontinuance

The Subject Vehicle Models

Master Duplicate Ledger