High Court Rules on Peugeot and Citroën Emissions Claims After Late Service

What did the High Court decide?

The judgment, handed down on 28 October 2026, concerned applications arising from the Peugeot/Citroën/DS NOx Emissions Group Litigation Order (GLO). The claims were issued, but the claim forms were not served within the specific cut-off period imposed by the GLO.

The Court concluded that the claimants could not obtain the procedural benefits reserved for those entered on the Group Register. However, exclusion from the register did not mean that their underlying claims automatically ceased to exist. The Court then considered the consequences of their failure to serve separate particulars of claim and the proportionate way to manage the claims going forward.

Exclusion from the Group Register does not, without more, extinguish an otherwise subsisting individual claim.

Summary of the judgment’s treatment of claims outside a Group Litigation Order

Why were the claimants excluded from the group litigation?

The PCD Group Litigation Order required qualifying claimants to issue and serve claim forms by the relevant cut-off date. Where a sealed claim form was received from the Court on or after 8 December 2024, it had to be served within seven days of receipt.

Bingham Long submitted the claim form through CE-File on 11 December 2024. The firm received an automated notification on 16 December that the filing had been accepted, but did not download the sealed claim form until 12 January 2025, when it was served by email. The defendants argued that the document had been received from the Court on 16 December and should therefore have been served within seven days.

Senior Master Cook accepted that position and refused relief from the consequences of late service. Mr Justice Constable held that compliance with the GLO’s cut-off requirements was a condition of entry on the Group Register. The fact that the claimants had been treated administratively as part of the group, or had participated in some group processes, did not change their legal status.

The judgment distinguished eligibility to bring an individual claim from entitlement to participate in a GLO. A claimant who misses a group cut-off may, subject to the ordinary rules and any limitation issues, still have a claim outside the collective proceedings.

Could the claims be struck out?

Because the BL claimants were outside the GLO, the requirement to serve particulars of claim applied to them. They had not served separate particulars within the relevant period, and accepted that this was a serious and significant breach. Their explanation was that they had understood their claims to be proceeding within the group litigation and believed they could rely on its dispensation from separate pleadings.

The Court considered the established approach to relief from sanctions, including the seriousness of the breach, the reason for it and all the circumstances of the case. The central question on the strike-out application was proportionality. The Court acknowledged the failure to resolve the procedural position promptly, but also considered the practical consequences of ending claims brought by approximately 5,000 individuals.

Immediate strike-out could terminate otherwise valid claims, potentially create limitation disputes if fresh proceedings were issued, and generate further expense and procedural complexity. The Court therefore concluded that immediate strike-out was not a proportionate response, while making clear that the claimants would receive only a short and final opportunity to correct the default.

What directions did the Court make?

Mr Justice Constable ordered that the claims would stand struck out without further order unless compliant, BL claimant-specific generic particulars of claim were served within 21 days. The particulars must be premised on the existing state of affairs in the wider Pan-Nox litigation.

If compliant particulars are served within that period, the BL claimants’ claims will be stayed generally, with liberty to apply. This means the claims may continue to exist, but they cannot simply proceed independently in a way that disrupts the orderly management of the group litigation. The judgment did not give the claimants an unrestricted right to pursue parallel proceedings or to participate in the GLO as registered claimants.

• 11 December 2024 Bingham Long submitted the claim form through CE-File.
• 12 January 2025 The sealed claim form was downloaded and served.
• 2 June 2026 Senior Master Cook’s judgment refused relief concerning late service.
• 28 October 2026 Mr Justice Constable handed down the judgment on the present applications.
• Within 21 days of the order Compliant generic particulars must be served to avoid strike-out; if served, the claims will be stayed generally.

Why did costs-sharing matter?

The Court also addressed the position of the wider claimant group. The BL claimants had, in practice, contributed substantial sums towards common costs and participated in work supporting the group litigation. The evidence included contributions to trial costs and work on objections to the Group Register.

Although the GLO’s express costs-sharing provisions did not apply to the BL claimants as a matter of construction, the Court held that its general case-management powers and broad discretion over costs could address the fairness of their position. It would not be fair for the BL claimants to retain the benefit of work undertaken for the wider group while leaving the remaining registered claimants alone to bear the adverse costs consequences.

The Court therefore ordered the BL claimants to pay their share of the adverse costs order imposed on the remaining PCD claimants. It distinguished this situation from one in which claimants deliberately remain outside group litigation in order to benefit from favourable findings without accepting the associated costs risks.

What does the judgment mean for group litigation?

The decision underlines the importance of complying with the specific entry requirements and cut-off dates set by a GLO. A claim may fall within the subject matter of group litigation without its claimant being entitled to registration or to the procedural advantages that registration provides.

At the same time, the judgment reinforces the distinction between exclusion from collective proceedings and extinguishment of an individual cause of action. Courts retain broad case-management powers to control parallel claims, including by staying them and imposing appropriate conditions. Strike-out remains available for serious procedural default, but the sanction must be proportionate to the circumstances.

For solicitors managing group claims, the practical lesson is to diarise group-specific deadlines separately from ordinary CPR service deadlines, download and serve sealed claim forms promptly, and seek directions as soon as any uncertainty about registration arises. Where a claim falls outside a GLO, practitioners should address the applicable pleading requirements immediately rather than assume that participation in group processes cures the defect.