Financial Times corrects representation details in diesel emissions coverage

The Financial Times has corrected an October 7 article about a UK High Court case involving 14 car manufacturers accused of deceiving regulators over diesel emissions, after wrongly stating that barrister Alexander Antelme KC represented both Renault and Nissan. The correction clarifies that Antelme represents Renault only, not Nissan.

The original version blurred the line between two separate defendants in a high-profile emissions lawsuit that has drawn parallels with the global “Dieselgate” scandal. By misattributing legal representation, the article inadvertently overstated the connection between the two automakers and risked confusing readers about the scope of Antelme’s advocacy.

Accurate attribution of legal roles is essential in reporting on complex litigation, where credibility and conflict of interest are scrutinised closely. A single misstatement of representation can distort perceptions of legal alignment, potentially implying cooperation or shared strategy where none exists.

The Financial Times’ correction ensures the parties’ relationships are portrayed correctly and avoids perpetuating a misleading impression of unified defence. The lapse nonetheless underscores the importance of meticulous fact-checking in courtroom reporting, where reputational and commercial stakes are high and precision is part of fairness.