The protracted legal case surrounding the termination of Mackie Motors took another twist following a High Court judgement.
Mackey Motors was terminated in 2021, with Kevin Mackie claiming consequential lost profits, business value and unreimbursed investment in seized vehicle stock.
At the time of its termination MMBL’s claims were handled by law firm Freeths LLP, whose arguments were struck out without hearing by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal as having no prospect of success.
MMBL subsequently instructed Motor Industry Legal Services who re-pleaded the case and raised a number of new legal and factual arguments.
Further, MILS joined in Renault and Nissan to the claim, who were not included in the original action.
In January this year Renault UK, Nissan Motor (GB) and RCI Financial Services issued an application seeking to strike out the claim issued by MILS in its entirety or, alternatively, that summary judgment be granted in their favour.
Judgment was handed down Friday in the High Court of Justice Commercial Court by Judge Lance Ashworth KC and the case can now succeed with Kevin Mackie getting his day in court.
The matter will therefore now be set down in due course for a trial of the issues, and a whistleblower is expected to give evidence for Mackie.
Kevin Mackie Told Motor Trader: “This is a decisive victory for Mackie Motors and a comprehensive rejection of Renault, Nissan and RCI Bank’s attempt to kill our case before the evidence could be heard.
“We now look forward to showing the Court why a profitable, number-one-performing family dealership could not continue after the overnight withdrawal of demonstrators, courtesy cars, customer orders, vehicle and parts supply, and access to critical dealer systems.
“After almost five years, Renault, Nissan and RCI must finally answer these serious allegations.”
Renault UK said: “We acknowledge the judge’s decision to allow the case to proceed to a further hearing. We will continue to defend our position, and will now evaluate our options, including a potential appeal of today’s ruling.”
