Pan-NOx Emissions Group Litigation (Funding Information and Disclosure Hearing)
Decision date: 21 November 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWHC 3116 (KB)
Court: High Court (King's Bench Division)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
The judgment concerns applications by several Manufacturer Defendants for disclosure from the Johnson Law Group (JLG) about its funding arrangements in advance of potential security for costs applications. The court ordered JLG to provide the funding information, subject to provision of adequate after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and proceeded to assess adequacy rather than postponing that issue. The judge held there was no real risk the policy wording (including the anti-avoidance endorsement) was inadequate, determined an appropriate recoverable proportion of defendants' incurred costs as 64%, and fixed 31 July as a cut-off after which required ATE cover must increase pro rata monthly.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium
The court ordered disclosure of JLG's funding information subject to adequate ATE insurance and held that the adequacy question could properly be decided on the application before it; on the facts before the court the appropriate proportion of defendants' incurred costs to be covered was 64% and ATE cover should be sufficient up to 31 July with pro rata increases thereafter.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The judgment indicated that other parties not before the court could seek to take different positions or adduce further evidence on adequacy in later security for costs applications, and that there is liberty to apply after the PDD trial judgment about re-purposing existing ATE insurance.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from the beginning and end of a long judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted from the judgment; this may omit material reasoning or detail relevant to the court's conclusions.