The Law Society Gazette’s ‘Lawyer in the news’ – Tom Snelling

Read the interview on The Law Society Gazette's website here. 

A link to Signature's blog post regarding the High Court's 10 July 2026 ruling can be found here. The Global Legal Post covered Tom's comments re this here.

Thoughts on the case

Tom Snelling: "I am proud to have represented Renault in what Lady Justice Cockerill described in her ruling as a 'behemoth' of litigation. The scale of the case was near unprecedented: over 1.6 million parties; thousands of pages of submissions; dozens of highly technical expert reports and witness statements; and (so far) over 100 days in court.

The Claimants alleged that certain diesel vehicles were equipped with “prohibited defeat devices” which inappropriately reduced the effectiveness of the vehicles’ emissions-control systems outside regulatory testing conditions, resulting in higher emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during normal vehicle use. As well as several questions about the meaning of the relevant emissions legislation, the High Court had to grapple with the 'Brexit Britain' phenomenon: namely, whether post-Brexit decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union should be followed by our courts.

The recent detailed ruling reflects the fact that the allegations made against our clients were, I felt, always misguided, and intellectually incoherent. The Claimants' case was built, gelatinously, on the false assumption that Renault vehicles contained a ‘cycle recognition device’ like that at the heart of 'VW Dieselgate'. This ignored engineering reality, doubling down instead on what Lady Justice Cockerill has now called a "dream car fallacy".

Having worked on this case for six years, it means a huge amount professionally and personally that Her Ladyship said that: "the parties have responded admirably to judicial “encouragement” to co-operate and assist the court".  It has been a Herculean effort by many people over many years.  There have been highs and lows, but it has undoubtedly been 'a journey'. "

Dealing with the media

Tom Snelling: "The long shadow cast by VW Dieselgate meant that this case was always bound to garner extensive media interest.  That would have been true even without any nudging from the parties.  It was also a 'trial run' by Lady Justice Cockerill of the principle of 'open reporting', a lodestar of the Commercial Court Transparency Pilot.

Before trial, a specific protocol was put in place that governed access by journalists, NGOs and other 'non-parties' to documents referred to during hearings. This reflected the balance the Court struck between open justice and preservation of confidentiality across more commercially sensitive documents exchanged between the parties."

Why become a lawyer?

Tom Snelling: "It was mainly a consequence of recognising that I was unlikely to achieve a successful career in musical theatre.  After that hammer blow, I decided I wanted to be a litigator.  It gave some scope for drama outside the theatre and I knew that I would enjoy being paid to argue.  Plus, much of litigation strategy is psychology: 25 years in to the job, I still enjoy reading how opponents will react and moving the pieces on the chessboard."

Career high

Tom Snelling: "A high(light) of this case was the fortnightly discussions with a High Court judge and the opportunity to give them directly the view 'from the coal face'.  I was also immensely proud of my colleagues (especially the more junior colleagues) who so articulately argued our clients' corner.  

It was rewarding that in her judgment, Cockerill LJ gave specific thanks to the core solicitor teams who have appeared regularly at these “management meetings”."

Career low

Tom Snelling: "An amusing 'low' in this case was the seriousness of a hearing being shattered by the Vengaboys singing "Boom,boom, boom, boom, I want you in my room".  Not my ringtone, fortunately."