The examination on expert evidence, cross examining and re-examining the Defence by the Claimant Counsel continued in the High Court during week seven.
The court was keen to explore more on various tests, poisoning and AdBlue deposits impacting the vehicle performance.
The Claimant Counsel examined the Ford’s expert and highlighted some discrepancies and gaps in the report and their submissions.
The Defendant’s expert accepted the errors and agreed with proposed corrections suggested by the Claimant Counsel.
The Defendant’s expert accepted the availability of alternative technology that was used in Ford’s vehicles in the US market and made attempts to distinguish between the US and the UK markets for example vehicle size and layout but was unable to rebut the point that SCR was a feasible, available alternative.
The Peugeot Citroen (PCD) factual witness accepted that the engineers were instructed to optimise NOx during the cycle making sure the engine protection and drivability.
The witness maintained that PCD understood the law as prohibiting defeat devices but allowed modulation for legitimate reasons reflecting this in the internal guidelines.
The witness defended on controlled consumption of preventing AdBlue deposits and ammonia slips.
Counsel for the Claimants challenged this for lack of contemporaneous documents linked consumption regulation to deposit control.
The Defence was cross examined on internal targets for AdBlue consumption and tank sizing.
The Defence was re-examined on cycle recognition and concerns about dosing strategy, describing ‘warm-up maps’ and reduced real world dosing as clearly defeat devices.
The Defence dismissed these submissions as Ford’s internal opinion asserting they disclosed its two-mode system to regulators.
This week concluded the Ford evidence. Next week will continue with more PCD evidence.
If you are following the trial updates and are keen to know what will happen next week, make sure to keep an eye on our weekly social media feed.
.jpg)