Renault, Nissan and RCI denied appeal in Mackie Motors case

On 10 September 2026 the High Court denied Renault, Nissan and RCI Financial Services permission to appeal the ruling that allows the Mackie Motors claim to proceed to trial, and ordered the trio to pay £117,500 in legal costs. The decision keeps the dispute alive and highlights the risks for finance providers linked to dealers.

Key takeaways

• The appeal was refused on 10 September 2026.
• Judge Lance Ashworth said there was no realistic prospect of success.
• The firms must pay £117,500 in legal costs.
• A renewed application to the Court of Appeal remains possible.

Background of the Mackie Motors dispute

In 2021 Mackie Motors, a family‑run dealer group, had its banking facilities and access to dealer systems withdrawn with seven days’ notice after internal suspicions of money laundering. The accusations were denied by Kevin Mackie, who described them as unfounded.

The sudden loss of finance forced the business into a distressed sale, and the dealer subsequently filed a legal claim against the finance parties.

High Court ruling on the appeal

Deputy High Court Judge Lance Ashworth KC ruled that the appeal ‘had no realistic prospect of success’ after hearing submissions from Renault, Nissan and RCI. He concluded the defendants had not shown any error in his original judgment.

The judge found the trio failed to demonstrate that he had considered something he should not have, omitted a relevant factor, erred in principle or reached a plainly wrong conclusion. Disliking a judgment is not a ground for appeal.

Cost order against Renault, Nissan and RCI

Judge Ashworth ordered the three firms to pay Mackie Motors £117,500 in legal costs relating to the failed appeal application. The amount claimed by Mackie Motors was £194,438.20 including VAT, but the judge deemed it excessive.

Responses from the parties

Kevin Mackie said the decision vindicated his fight for accountability, noting that almost five years of his life had been taken by the wrongful accusations. He urged the finance firms to accept responsibility.

Renault UK stated it will continue to defend its position, while RCI Financial Services said it respects the court’s decision, is reviewing the judgment and will consider its options, adding no further comment at this stage.

What this means for dealers

The judgment shows that finance providers can be held to pay substantial costs if they unsuccessfully challenge a dealer’s claim. It underlines the importance of robust compliance procedures and solid evidence before commencing litigation against a dealer.

Dealers should closely monitor the conduct of their finance partners, maintain clear documentation of any disputes, and be prepared for possible further litigation, as a renewed application to the Court of Appeal remains available.

Frequently asked questions

Can Renault, Nissan and RCI still challenge the decision?

Yes, the firms may lodge a fresh application directly with the Court of Appeal, bypassing the High Court. However, any new application would need to demonstrate a clear error in the original judgment, which the judge previously found lacking.

How could the cost order affect other dealer finance agreements?

The order signals that finance organisations could be liable for significant legal costs if their challenges fail. Dealers may seek tighter contract terms, and both parties are likely to place greater emphasis on documented compliance and dispute‑resolution processes to avoid similar cost exposures.