Mackie Motors (Brechin) Limited v Renault UK Limited & Ors

Henderson v Henderson abuse is determined by a broad, merits-based assessment of all the circumstances. The fact that a claim could have been brought earlier does not, by itself, make later proceedings abusive. The court must consider misuse of its process, oppression or harassment, including whether any such harassment is unjust. The fact that proposed defendants were not parties to earlier proceedings is a powerful factor, although it is not an absolute bar. A claim based on genuinely unavailable evidence may be brought later. Summary judgment should not be granted where causation depends on a disputed counterfactual and deciding it would require a mini-trial.

The defendants applied to strike out MMBL’s current claims as an abuse of process under CPR r 3.4(2) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, or alternatively for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. The defendants relied on an earlier claim against RCI concerning the termination of financing arrangements and related proposed claims against Renault and Nissan. That earlier claim had been struck out at the pleading stage and the appeal dismissed: [2022] EWHC 1942 (Ch); [2023] EWCA Civ 476.

The current action alleged breaches of implied terms in the Renault, Dacia and Nissan dealership agreements, procurement or inducement of those breaches by RCI, and breaches of the used vehicle financing agreement. The central issues were whether the claims should have been advanced in the earlier proceedings and whether the defendants had established that the pleaded losses had no realistic prospect of being caused by the alleged breaches.

1. Abuse of process. The application to strike out was dismissed. The court applied the broad, merits-based approach in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. The question was whether, in all the circumstances, MMBL was misusing the court’s process. Merely showing that a matter could have been raised earlier was insufficient. The defendants had to establish abuse, and the later proceedings would rarely be abusive without unjust harassment or oppression.
2. Renault and Nissan. Their non-party status in the Previous Claim was a powerful factor. They had not participated in the applications or appeal, and no court had adjudicated on the alleged breaches of their dealership agreements. The current claims were therefore not an impermissible relitigation of an issue already decided. The fact that MMBL had changed its legal team and advanced a different pleading did not make the action abusive. Vince v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 899 was of limited assistance, while Finnan v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWHC 1940 was materially distinguishable.
3. RCI. The inducement claim was not abusive. The evidence said to support it became available only after the Court of Appeal hearing, and the court could not reject that evidence without cross-examination. The claim was not merely a repackaging of the earlier case. The separate used vehicle financing claim was also not abusive. Although it could have been included earlier, it was a distinct and relatively straightforward claim, and its inclusion did not misuse the court’s process.
4. Summary judgment. The application was dismissed. Applying Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), the court recognised that a realistic prospect is a relatively low hurdle and that it must not conduct a mini-trial. The defendants had a strong causation case: the business may have failed because RCI lawfully withdrew finance and MMBL sold to Parks in reliance on an earlier belief that alternative finance was unavailable. However, the counterfactual effect of retaining access to the manufacturers’ systems while losing RCI finance remained fact-sensitive. The claim therefore had more than a fanciful prospect of success. The parties were invited to draw up an order and consider joint case management with the negligence claim.

1. High Court (Chancery Division). Permission to amend was refused and the proposed amended particulars of claim were struck out: [2022] EWHC 1942 (Ch) .
2. Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Civ 476 .
3. High Court (Circuit Commercial Court). The present strike-out and summary judgment applications were dismissed.