9:00 am, October 13, 2025
Car dealer Kevin Mackie has taken his fight against his former brand partners to the European Commission as his legal battle continues to hot up.
The embattled retailer is currently embroiled in legal action against Renault UK Limited, Nissan Motor (GB) Limited and RCI Financial Services Limited, after his banking, and access to key dealer systems, were was pulled with seven days notice back in 2021.
Submissions have already been lodged with the High Court and Mackie’s team have now received documents outlining the trio’s defence.
The documents contain a number of significant claims regarding dealer agreements, signed by Nissan and Renault franchisees, and Mackie has vowed to fight the case all the way.
In the meantime, the 57-year-old has registered his complaint with the European Commission director general for competition.
In a statement issued to Car Dealer, the Scottish businessman said: ‘Mackie Motors has formally lodged a complaint with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition against Renault UK, Nissan GB and RCI Bank, alleging serious breaches of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation (MVBER).’
‘Franchise dealers ‘operating on a knife-edge’
Mackie’s team have now received official documents from Nissan, Renault and RCI outlining the groups’ defence.
The legal papers, seen in full by Car Dealer, claim that Nissan and Renault are actually under no obligation to supply cars or parts to their dealer networks, in accordance with the terms of their franchise agreements.
The respondents also refute claims that they breached dealer guidelines by denying Mackie Motors access to key systems.
Mackie has labelled the defence ‘astonishing’ and says it leaves other franchise dealers ‘operating on a knife-edge’.
In paragraph 32.1 of their defence, the respondents say of the claim: ‘It depends on an assumption that the dealer agreements entitled MMBL [Mackie Motors (Brechin) Ltd] to receive certain minimum volumes of cars and/or parts from Renault and Nissan.
‘Absent such an entitlement, Renault could simply refuse to supply any cars or parts ordered by MMBL via the platform services (at which point, the availability of the platform services becomes an irrelevance).
‘However, MMBL had no such entitlement.’
The respondents later reinforce the same message, adding that Renault and Nissan ‘were not under any obligation to fulfil any orders for parts’.
They also do not deny that removing system access would make it impossible for a dealership to function but argue that such action would not constitute a breach of terms breach, as dealer agreements do not guarantee supply of cars or parts at all.
In response to the documents, Mackie said: ‘For the first time, Renault and Nissan now face High Court action in the UK, where their own defence astonishingly states that they are under no obligation to supply a single vehicle or part to any of their franchised dealers if they choose not to.
‘This position flies in the face of long-established European competition law and the protections designed to prevent arbitrary or abusive treatment of authorised dealers.
‘The European Commission now has full authority to investigate these practices, and I remain confident that the truth will come out not just for Mackie Motors, but for every dealer and consumer in the UK and Europe who deserves transparency, fairness, and accountability in the motor industry.’
Mackie’s position has been supported by Bob Batty, director of specialist automotive data consultancy firm, Automotive Services International.
He said ‘This defence makes clear that no dealership is truly safe.
‘By denying supply they are trying to side step consumer and dealer protection by working around MVBER protections.
‘Even if you meet every sales target and follow every rule for over 40 years, your business can be switched off overnight. I
‘In all my years in the industry, I have never seen a case where a dealer holds a valid franchise agreement, however supply of cars and parts is halted with no dialogue whatsoever. Especially a dealer that is not in any financial default, has hit all objectives nor is in any dispute with the brand.’
‘We need urgent regulatory scrutiny of the enormous power imbalance between manufacturers and dealers.’
‘Not action we undertook lightly’
In response to Mackie’s comments, RCI said it ‘values its relationships with dealers very highly’ as it pointed to the previous court decisions.
A spokesman for the bank told Car Dealer: ‘We are not able to comment on an ongoing litigation.
‘However, it’s worth noting that three previous courts, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal, found in favour of our actions regarding MMBL.
‘We value our relationships with dealers very highly, so it was not action we undertook lightly, and we never had reason to do so before or since.’
Meanwhile, Renault has told Car Dealer that it will be seeking to dismiss the latest proceedings ‘at the earliest opportunity’.
A spokesman for the French brand said: ‘Mackie Motors has pursued a long running campaign against our company. This has resulted in three separate courts, including the Court of Appeal, dismissing Mackie Motors’ claims, including for alleged breaches of competition law.
‘We are aware that Mackie Motors has now lodged a complaint with the European Commission and has issued further proceedings against us. We intend to seek the dismissal of those proceedings at the earliest opportunity.’
How have we got here?
Mackie Motors was initially locked out of manufacturer systems in late 2021, amid internal suspicions of money laundering.
Mackie strongly denies the claims and describes the accusations as ‘unfounded’. Within weeks of being shut off, the business was sold in a distress deal.
Last year, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that RCI did have the right to cut off the dealership at seven days’ notice a fresh case is now set to be heard in the High Court.
Over recent months Mackie has received political support from the likes of Nigel Farage and his own local MP, Dave Doogan, who raised the issue in Parliament.
Sources close to the proceedings have told Car Dealer that the fresh case will benefit from ‘whistleblower evidence’, which ‘reframes the legal argument’.
Renault, Nissan and RCI say that the ongoing proceedings ‘repeat matters already litigated in previous proceedings’ and accuse Mackie Motors of ‘re-litigating’ the same facts under new legal theories.
The defendants have also issued two counter claims. The first seeks the repayment of a £250,000 interest-free loan, as well as £91,308.94 in interest and the second is asking for £280,943.32 in unpaid costs from prior proceedings, in addition to £52,333.84 in interest.
Mackie Motors has until the end of next week to respond to the defence documents with a High Court date is likely to be set for next year.
Car Dealer has contacted Nissan for comment.
