8:25 am, March 16, 2026
Peter Waddell has been accused of interfering with witnesses during an internal investigation into his conduct at Big Motoring World.
The claims were made during Friday’s evidence at the High Court, where the motor trade tycoon is suing Bluebell Cars – the ultimate holding company of Big Motoring World – for unfair dismissal, harassment and disability discrimination.
Last week saw current Big Motoring World CEO, Laurence Vaughan, take to the witness box, where he denied ousting Waddell for his six figure salary.
Car Dealer had a reporter in court on Friday (Mar 13), when Waddell’s lawyer, Alan Gourgey KC, claimed that the disciplinary process against the 59-year-old had been ‘grossly unfair’.
He claimed Vaughan gave him details of the allegations he was facing at ‘the last possible moment’ and in a format that was hard for him to digest because of his dyslexia.
In response, Vaughan said that the ‘normal process’ according to the company’s policy was for allegations only to be presented to the person under investigation during an in person interview.
Mr Waddell received a 472 page bundle of the allegations against him on April 2, along with an invitation to an interview on April 9.
Mr Gourgey said this was ‘manifestly unfair’, telling Vaughan: ‘I suggest to you that to give him a week to digest the material, formulate his position to the material for each of the allegations, and prepare for an interview was wholly insufficient time for even a person without any disabilities at all.’
Vaughan responded: ‘I don’t agree with that at all. It wasn’t just giving it to Pete,
‘Pete was represented by a very large international law firm that was giving him extensive support.’
He added: This is a lot more information than we would have given to any other employee of the company.’
During a tense day of cross-examination, Vaughan refuted the suggestion that a week was not enough time to prepare for an interview about these allegations.
‘I would not have to refresh my memory to know if I’d called someone a brown person or a darkie or whatever the allegation is,’ he said.
The court heard that Waddell’s legal team responded to the bundle with a letter saying that their client Waddell had been signed off work for four weeks with stress and anxiety and would not be able to attend the meeting.
Vaughan said he was ‘sceptical’ of a letter and accused Waddell of ‘not engaging with the process’.
‘He was inundating us, he was posting stuff everywhere, he was passing comments to people in the team, he was very involved in the process and I believed this was a way of not engaging with the process,’ he said.
Gourgey said: ‘You had no interest in medical evidence because you had no interest in giving Mr Waddell a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.’
Vaughan said: ‘I absolutely refute that.’
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’
‘I felt intimidated’
During his evidence, it was revealed that Vaughan and the committee of internal investigators looking into Waddell’s conduct gave instructions to the independent investigators to end their inquiry on April 9, 2024.
Gourgey suggested this decision was motivated by the fact the Waddell’s legal team were threatening litigation that day.
Vaughan said: ‘Yes, I was concerned about that, but I guess I was wrapping that up in my view that Pete was pretty determined to frustrate the process by whatever means necessary.
‘Mr Waddell was interfering with witnesses, he was making threats, some of which included death threats, we felt there was a real risk to delay.’
When pressed on the issue of death threats, Vaughan said the claim related to a message sent by Waddell to Big Motoring World employee, Bob Ruprah, in which he said: ‘We [are] going to die you.’
Gourgey said the use of the word ‘die’ was a mistake related to Waddell’s dyslexia and a correction was sent almost immediately, changing the word to ‘sue’ – an explanation eventually accepted by Vaughan.
Gourgey also asked: ‘Why could it not wait for a few days?’ Vaughan said: ‘Time is of the essence, these are very serious matters.’
He referred in his witness statement to a message from Mr Waddell which he found ‘intimidating’.
It told him to keep his office clean for him as he would be back in four weeks, and that Vaughan should be looking for a new job.
Gourgey suggested that Vaughan wasn’t actually intimidated by this message as he sent it on to someone else at the time and referred to it as ‘entertaining’.
‘What you have sought to do in your witness statement is to project an image of physical threats from Mr Waddell when nothing is further from the case,’ the barrister said.
Vaughan responded: ‘Absolutely not, I felt intimidated and I didn’t get nearly as bad as some others.
Gourgey also accused Vaughan of ‘acting in a biased manner because he ‘wanted findings against Mr Waddell’. He also alleged that Vaughan failed to act fairly by not giving Waddell notice that the investigation was going to be closed.
Speaking after proceedings on Friday, Waddell said: ‘This case has already cost me £20m.
‘They lost £24m from the company last year. If we don’t win there won’t be a company to save, and 1,500 people will lose their jobs.’
The hearing continues.
