At 2TG our people are hard-working, forward-thinking and approachable. We believe our supportive culture is one of our greatest strengths.
With the set comprising around 60 barristers, we know each other well and work effectively together. We often operate in large teams with clients. Our practice management team is modern and commercial, matching barrister experience thoughtfully to clients’ requirements.
At 2TG our barristers are expert in a broad range of complementary practice areas and we enjoy repeat instructions from a variety of loyal clients.
Practised advocates from the start, all our Silks and the vast majority of our Junior barristers are recognised as leaders in their chosen fields. Many of us are at the forefront of shaping the law in our specialist areas and we pride ourselves in having excellent industry knowledge.
At 2TG our barristers have excellent experience acting across a range of industry sectors and we are able to offer advice in an informed and commercial context.
Our combination of practice area excellence and industry expertise means we possess real insight into the commercial realities facing our clients operating in these areas. Secondment plays an important part of our commitment to developing our skills and understanding.
2TG is home to award-winning accredited mediators, arbitrators, adjudicators and experts with considerable experience of alternative dispute resolution.
Our barristers are also skilled as advocates in different alternative dispute resolution procedures and work strategically with clients to understand their commercial objectives, and then to resolve litigation as cost-effectively and expeditiously as possible.
Work with an international dimension forms a significant part of many barristers’ work at 2TG.
We appear in international courts and arbitral tribunals all over the world, frequently acting on complex multi-jurisdictional disputes. We are particularly well-known for managing cross border litigation on matters of jurisdiction and applicable law and appear regularly in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
At 2TG, in addition to our professional advice, we are recognised for our excellent contribution to education and development. We provide regular high-quality training.
Our reputation among the legal profession and other clients for our first-rate webinars and in-person conferences is very important to us. We also contribute frequently at industry events and as editors of leading texts and authors on topics of legal interest.
Insights
The first substantive trial in the NOx emissions took place over two weeks in October before Constable J, who handed down judgment on 14 November 2024. The judgment considered the European type approval regime by which cars are brought to market.
The Court was asked to decide whether the Claimants and/or the English Court were bound by various regulatory decisions (“KBA Decisions”) made by the competent vehicle type approval authority in Germany – the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (“KBA”). Mercedes-Benz, supported by Volkswagen and Nissan, contended that the Court was bound by such decisions, meaning that the Claimants were unable to bring civil claims for damages in the English Courts unless or until those decisions were set aside in Germany.
To resolve the dispute, the Court had to determine two main issues of German law: the regulatory content of the KBA Decisions, and whether they were binding in Germany. The Court then had to determine what effect (if any) the KBA Decisions had as a matter of English and European law, taking into account both legislative changes to the type approval regime in 2018 and Brexit.
After hearing oral evidence from German law experts, the Court concluded that the regulatory content of the KBA Decisions was narrow and the KBA Decisions (aside from one subset of Decision) were not binding on the German civil courts, with Constable J essentially following the civil law jurisprudence of the Bundesgerichtshof (“BGH”), the highest German civil court. Submissions that the Court should follow the jurisprudence of the administrative courts was rejected.
The Court also found that, as a matter EU law, the KBA Decisions were not binding on the Claimants as they were not addressees of the decisions. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered in detail the jurisprudence of the CJEU in relation to the use of prohibited defeat devices; English authorities relating medicines regulation; the operation of private law rights relating to product liability; and the requirement of effective judicial protection.
Gareth Shires of 2 Temple Gardens was instructed on behalf of the Claimants.