8:54 am, April 2, 2026
The High Court has been told that Big Motor World investors Freshstream may have ‘reverse-engineered’ a plan to remove chief executive Peter Waddell.
During closing submissions on Monday (March 30 and day 26 of the hearing) into a case brought by Mr Waddell, who is claiming unfair dismissal, harassment and disability discrimination by Bluebell Cars – the ultimate holding company of Big Motoring World – Alan Gourgey, KC, representing Mr Waddell, argued that Freshstream’s use of ‘step-in rights’ and disciplinary processes was part of a wider strategy to oust Waddell and take control of the company.
He told the court that Freshstream had recognised ‘the legal limits of step-in rights’ and that those powers alone ‘would not enable it to remove Mr Waddell as a director or as CEO’, adding that this led to what he described as ‘reverse-engineering to find a route to achieve those aims’.
Mr Gourgey went further, alleging that Waddell’s conduct was deliberately used against him, describing it as ‘the weaponisation of Mr Waddell’s behaviour that had long been known to them’.
He argued that this formed part of a broader ‘plot’ to remove the CEO, telling the court that key individuals were ‘taking the steps they did pursuant to the plot that had been put in place and which they were now implementing’.
Mr Waddell was removed as CEO in April 2024 and replaced by director Lawrence Vaughan, who was preferred by Freshstream to industry legend Daksh Gupta.
Mr Waddell has also accused senior figures of conflicts of interest, submitting that Mr Vaughan ‘stood to benefit by Mr Waddell being removed as director and CEO’, alongside others involved in the process.
A central plank of Waddell’s case is that concerns about his behaviour were not acted on until it suited the investor’s objectives.
Mr Gourgey told the court that the Freshstream had ‘extensive knowledge throughout 2023’ of the alleged conduct, yet ‘only sought to exploit their knowledge when it came to the end of 2023 where they were seeking to weaponise that conduct for their purposes of obtaining complete control of the business’.
He added that if the conduct had truly been serious, action would have been taken earlier, arguing that the issues were allowed to ‘continue for months and months and months’.
The trial so far…
- Peter Waddell says he was victim of Big Motoring World ‘coup’ as High Court trial gets underway
- Waddell ran ‘fiefdom’ and complained about ‘too many muslims’, court hears
- Peter Waddell accused of using disabilities as a ‘fig leaf’ as High Court trial continues
- ‘I wish I’d never sold to them’: Waddell tells court of regret in selling Big Motoring World
- Peter Waddell nicknamed employee ‘Ching the P***’ because ‘his father ran a corner shop’, court hears
- Daksh Gupta held talks over becoming Big Motoring World CEO after Marshall departure
- Weekly Briefing: High Court hears there was ANOTHER bidder for Big Motoring World
- Laurence Vaughan accused of being ‘paid by two masters’ as ‘secret’ payment is revealed
- Freshstream planned leadership change at Big Motoring World months before Waddell’s exit, court hears
- Waddell kept in the dark over misconduct allegations as investigation faces scrutiny
- Court hears Big Motoring World TrustPilot score fell after Waddell exit
- Vaughan tells court he didn’t oust Waddell for CEO role because he could have ‘got any job I wanted’
- Waddell accused of interfering with witnesses in Big Motoring World misconduct investigation
- Big Motoring World executives awarded ‘PW bonuses’ after Waddell was ousted from firm, court hears
- Big Motoring World executives mocked ‘rude a****ole’ Peter Waddell in WhatsApp groups
- Big Motoring World director left in ‘absolute shock’ by Waddell’s bugging and surveillance claims
- Court hears that Waddell’s dyslexia is ‘severe’, as expert rejects exaggeration claims
However, the defence strongly rejected the suggestion of any coordinated plot.
Representing Mr Vaughan, Graeme McPherson KC, told the court on Wednesday (April 1, and day 28) that the idea of a single, pre-planned decision was ‘just nonsense’, arguing instead that events unfolded over time.
He described the process as ‘an evolution’ with ‘different decisions being taken by different people at different times on the basis of different information’, rather than a conspiracy.
Mr McPherson said the investor’s actions were driven by concerns about both business performance and Mr Waddell’s conduct, telling the court: ‘It’s a prudent, careful, sensible thought process, it is not a sinister plan’.
The High Court judge, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, acknowledged the competing narratives, noting that the case required careful analysis of how events developed over time.
He observed that the court would need to consider ‘the factors that gave rise to’ what the claimant describes as a plot, rather than focusing solely on when it became fully formed.
He also simplified the core issue at the heart of the dispute, asking whether the case could ‘be put a little more simply… that it was all about control?’
The court heard that the alleged ‘plot’ spans several months, with Mr Gourgey arguing it developed ‘from mid to late December onwards’, ultimately culminating in the removal of Mr Waddell from management.
The case now turns on whether Freshstream’s actions were a legitimate response to concerns about the business and its leadership, or whether, as Mr Waddell alleges, they were part of a premeditated strategy to seize control.
A judgment is expected to follow at a later date.
