Toyota hit with diesel emissions class action

MADDEN Lawyers has launched a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria on behalf of up to half a million owners of diesel-powered Toyota vehicles.

The class action alleges that Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (TMCA) imported and sold “hundreds of thousands” of diesel-powered vehicles to Australian consumers that possess engine emission cheating design features known as ‘defeat devices’.

Madden Lawyers alleges that “some diesel engines developed by Toyota, including those incorporated in … the LandCruiser and HiLux, include design elements which tamper with the vehicle's emission control system in order to enhance the car’s performance”.

TMCA says it stands by its reporting, monitoring and evaluation standards in relation to the emissions for all its vehicles and that it will defend the class action rigorously, adding that as the matter is before the courts that it has no further comment.

Maddens Lawyers special counsel Brendan Pendergast alleges that the emission control system of some Toyota models perform differently in test conditions compared with on-road conditions, meaning vehicles sold with affected engines may be emitting what he says are unlawfully high levels of nitrogen oxide.

“Toyota has historically been one of Australia’s most trusted brands,” said Mr Pendergast.

“It is Australia’s top-selling car brand. If the court finds that Toyota has been using defeat devices then there are literally hundreds of thousands of people driving a car that simply should never (have) been allowed on our roads.”

While Mr Pendergast did not present scientific validation of this assertion, the class action he represents alleges that Toyota engaged in conduct which was misleading and deceptive, while also alleging that “affected vehicles are not of acceptable quality and do not meet the necessary safety standards under Australian Consumer Law”.

“We are aware of an unconnected claim against Toyota, which relates to a defect with the diesel particulate filter (DPF) in certain HiLux, Fortuner and (LandCruiser) Prado diesel vehicles,” he said.

“This is a separate claim and does not extend to Toyota’s use of defeat devices. The allegations in Maddens’ class action concerning the use of defeat devices are a much broader issue and impacts a larger range of Toyota cars.

“If anyone has registered for the DPF defect class action they are also eligible to participate in Maddens Lawyers Toyota Diesel Defeat Class Action,” he explained.

The lead plaintiff in the class action, Mr Adam Rowe, is advancing the case on behalf of up to 500,000 eligible vehicle owners.

According to Mr Pendergast, owners of Toyota vehicles sold on or after 7 February 2016 are eligible to participate in the class action whether they purchased the vehicle new or used.

Vehicles claimed to be affected by the issue include Fortuner, Granvia, HiAce, HiLux and LandCruiser Prado models fitted with Toyota’s 2.8-litre 1GD-FTV engine; HiLux models fitted with Toyota’s 2.4-litre 2GD-FTV engine; LandCruiser models fitted with Toyota’s 3.3-litre F33A-FTV or 4.5-litre 1VD-FTV engine and RAV4 models fitted with Toyota’s 2.2-litre 2AD-FHV or 2AD-FTV engine.

“The number of impacted vehicles means that the potential ramifications for Toyota are enormous,” said Mr Pendergast.

“This could completely overshadow VW’s dieselgate scandal.

“This class action is one of the biggest claims in Australia’s legal history. It could result in each participant receiving tens of thousands of dollars in compensation,” he said while urging affected owners to join the class action online.

Maddens Lawyers and Mr Rowe are being supported by environmental, social and governance specialists Woodsford Litigation Funding.

Though unrelated, the claim follows a similar scandal related to Toyota Motor Corporation subsidiary Hino Motors. That company suspended the sale of several diesel-powered truck models in Japan following the misreporting of fuel efficiency and emissions data.

Class actions against Hino Motors are being pursued by two separate law firms unrelated to Madden Lawyers.