The High Court has ordered a motorist who sued Volkswagen companies over an emissions-affected car to provide further details of his claim before discovery. The ruling followed an appeal by three defendants against a Circuit Court decision on particulars, the information a party must provide to clarify its case.
Mr Justice Heslin said the plaintiff must reply to particulars concerning the representations he says induced him to buy the car, who made them, whether they were oral or written, why he alleges they were fraudulent or reckless, and what loss he says followed. He must also clarify the marketing or sales material he relied on and the basis for seeking rescission and repayment.
The plaintiff’s 2017 equity civil bill alleged that representations about the car’s quality, emissions, tax and fuel efficiency were false, and that the defendants had made them fraudulently or negligently. It also referred to the alleged installation of an emissions “cheat device” in EA189 diesel vehicles and said the plaintiff was notified in October 2015 that his car was affected. Those are allegations described in the pleadings, not findings made in this appeal.
The judgment records that the car was bought in April 2015 for €21,950, with €14,000 financed through a hire-purchase agreement. The plaintiff sought damages and repayment, as well as repudiation or rescission of the agreements. During the appeal, his solicitor confirmed by email that the plaintiff had sold the car in May 2018, without the solicitor’s knowledge. The judgment gives no sale price. The judge said the sale was relevant to the pleaded claim for rescission and reinforced the need for particulars about loss.
The Circuit Court had ordered replies to four particulars and declined the others. In its appeal, the High Court directed replies to particulars 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 29, 40 and 42, and said the defendants were also entitled to replies to the repeated particulars in Part 2 of the appeal schedule. For particulars 19 and 29, and 40, the court specified that certain references to “evidence” must be disregarded or deleted. It also said the plaintiff could qualify replies by reference to the limits of information available to him.
The court did not determine whether the alleged misrepresentations or fraud occurred, whether the plaintiff suffered the claimed losses, or whether he is entitled to repayment or rescission. It said its decision addressed the narrow question of which particulars should be answered in this case. The parties were directed to correspond about costs and, if they could not agree, file short written submissions within 28 days.