Bannister Law in Australia said it was trying to see if Hino had breached the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018 and the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 and is considering launching a class action.
Separately, Gerard Malouf & Partners (GMP Law) on September 30 started a class action proceeding against Hino in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
In March, Hino in Japan issued a statement saying: “Hino has identified misconduct related to the certification procedures for multiple engine models subject to the 2016 emissions regulations (so-called ‘post-post-new long-term regulations’; the “2016 Emission Regulations”) and fuel economy standards in Japan and found problems in engine performance.”
“Additionally, Hino will carefully examine the impact in terms of the tax benefits it receives for the emissions and fuel economy performance of vehicles equipped with these engines.
“Hino will bear the cost of any additional tax payments that may be required,” the Hino statement said.
In a statement made to GoAutoNews Premium, Hino Australia said that it acknowledged the statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Hino reiterated that the reported misconduct concerning engine certification in Japan relates to the certification process and does not affect the driveability of the affected vehicles and raises no vehicle safety concerns.
Hino reiterated to working with dealers and customers about these issues and engaging with the relevant authorities in Australia.
Hino’s president Satoshi Ogiso late last month publicly apologised and claimed the company’s management took its responsibilities and public image seriously.
In a statement last month, Hino said it “deeply apologises that it, as a company supporting the social infrastructure of people and goods, has violated Japanese laws and regulations and, by doing so, betrayed the trust of its customers and other stakeholders.
“Hino will treat this correction order with the utmost seriousness, and will develop and implement comprehensive remedial measures in response, continuously improve and strengthen such measures, and establish a corporate culture and governance to prevent the recurrence of misconduct in the future.”
In a statement in early August, Hino Australia said it had voluntarily suspended imports and deliveries of 500 Series Standard Cab FC, FD, and FE vehicles and Poncho buses to dealers.
Hino Australia is currently also not accepting any new orders for the affected vehicles pending the outcome of HML’s engagement with the authorities in Japan.
In a statement, Hino Australia said: “Hino is committed to working with dealers and customers about these issues and engaging with the relevant authorities in Australia.”
The issue covers trucks and buses sold around the world. It is believed that there are 26 different engine types that were subject of the misconduct, with a total vehicle count of 860,000.
Bannister Law is asking for Australian Hino owners to register via its website.
GMP said it “seeks compensation on behalf of all purchasers or lessees of affected Hino vehicles in Australia which were the subject of misconduct in relation to the certification in Japan in respect of emissions and fuel economy from as early as 2003.”
“Compensatory damages are being claimed against both companies with an additional claim for exemplary or punitive damages against the Japanese parent company.
“It is claimed that the misconduct in relation to emissions and fuel economy of Hino vehicles has caused not only financial loss to consumers of these vehicles but also environmental damage and damage to human health through excess emissions.”
The class action in Australia follows a similar action in the US by law firm Lieff Cabraser.
The US case has been brought to the Southern District of Florida and the law firm said it was seeking more than $A7 million in damages.
The history of the case started in March this year when Hino went public by saying it had discovered evidence of tampering of fuel system data from September 2016. It hired an independent committee to investigate.
In August, the committee announced it had found the actions went back to 2004, and in some reports, to 2003.
In the report, the committee said: “Hino cannot escape the determination that it made a false report.”
The report said that Hino “aimed to achieve the fuel consumption standards in order to be eligible for tax preferential treatment but failed to achieve its goal, and thus, it engaged in misconduct by intentionally adjusting the calibration values of the fuel flowmeter in order to meet the specification values required for application.”
In its findings, led by committee chairman Kazuo Sakakibara, the report claimed that Hino human resources created an atmosphere that made it difficult to ensure “psychological safety” of employees and were left behind by the changes in the world because of the company’s past successes.
By Neil Dowling
Read More: Related articles
