Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) is facing group proceedings in Scotland over their alleged use of prohibited defeat devices in their diesel vehicles. The Inner House of the Court of Session recently upheld the Lord Ordinary’s decision to allow the case to proceed by way of group proceedings, with Steven Milligan appointed as the representative party for over 6,400 individuals (Milligan v Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC & others [2025] CSIH 16). JLR is now seeking to apply directly to the UK Supreme Court for permission to appeal this decision.
The inner house decision
At first instance, JLR argued that the requirements for the commencement of group proceedings under Chapter 26A of the Rules of the Court of Session had not been met. Further, they challenged the proposed appointment of Mr Milligan as the representative party. Lord Ericht, the judge hearing the applications at first instance, rejected JLR’s opposition to the applications.
Thereafter, JLR lodged an appeal (reclaiming motion) against the decision at first instance. The Inner House dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of Lord Ericht at first instance. The Inner House held that Mr Milligan was a suitable representative party, and that the existence of a prima facie case with real prospects of success had been sufficiently demonstrated to allow the matter to proceed by way of group proceedings.
Appealing to the UK Supreme Court: the process
It is understood that JLR have made an application to the UK Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision of the Inner House.
Appeals from the Court of Session to the UK Supreme Court are governed by the Court of Session Act 1988. In order to appeal to the Supreme Court, a party must first seek permission to appeal from the Inner House. If this is refused, the party can then apply directly to the UK Supreme Court for permission.
Where permission to appeal is refused by the Inner House, an application to the Supreme Court must be made within 28 days of the Inner House’s refusal to grant permission. The application to the Supreme Court must set out the proposed grounds of appeal, and the basis upon which permission is sought.
Test for permission
Where a party applies directly to the UK Supreme Court, the appeal must meet a permission test:
- The appeal must raise an arguable point of law of general public importance.
- The Supreme Court must be satisfied that the point is one which ought to be considered at that level, either due to its wider significance or because it raises an important legal principle.
This is a high threshold, and the Supreme Court will typically only grant permission where:
- The legal issue has broad implications beyond the immediate case;
- There is a need for clarification of the law at the highest level; or
- The issue is novel, complex, or unsettled in existing case law.
The burden will be on the Applicant, in this case JLR, to demonstrate the public importance of the legal issue.
Significance and practical impact
This is the first group proceedings decision, under Scotland’s relatively new class action regime, where there is to be an application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The appeal process in the JLR case highlights the evolving legal landscape for collective redress in Scotland. The outcome of this appeal could set an important precedent for the authorisation and management of group proceedings in Scotland. Should the Supreme Court grant permission for leave to appeal, the appeal decision may clarify the threshold for proposed group proceedings and who may be appointed as a representative party.
If you would like to discuss any of the topics raised in this blog, please contact Craig Watt or your usual Brodies contact.
Contributors
Partner & Solicitor Advocate
Trainee Solicitor
