Rags to riches used car tycoon says he was wrongfully sacked from own business over offensive comments
A rags-to-riches multimillionaire motoring tycoon is suing, claiming he was unfairly sacked from his own £200 million job after being accused of a series of offensive comments towards colleagues.
Peter Waddell, 59, who amassed an estimated £500 million fortune as boss of Kent-based second-hand car empire Big Motoring World as a homeless teenager on the streets of Glasgow, says he was the victim of a “meticulous scheme” to sideline him and “rob” and pocket tens of millions by people linked to a private investment fund that bought a third of his business.
The entrepreneur, who went from living on the street to owning a mansion and fleet of luxury cars recently listed in London for £23.5 million, sold a third stake in his Big Motoring World Group companies to private equity firm Freshstream for £72 million in 2022, as part of a move to spend less time working and more time with his family.
But in April 2024, Mr Waddell said investors were behind a successful bid to oust him as CEO and take control of his business.
The businessman is now suing personally and through one of his other companies, Peter Waddell Holdco Ltd, seeking to reinstate himself as boss and wrest control of the group of companies from Freshstream and senior staff who he says are working in the interests of the company and against the business.
He claims there was a deliberate conspiracy to sideline him and “take away the value” of a formerly thriving business, which he says has now deteriorated in his absence.
He also claims that his disabilities, including dyslexia, deafness and autistic spectrum disorder, were ignored during the internal disciplinary process that resulted in his dismissal, rendering that process invalid.
But Freshstream is defending the case through its own “intermediary” Bluebell Cars Holding Ltd, claiming it took a legitimate move to remove Mr Waddell from management of the business after a series of allegations of unacceptable sexist, racist and abusive comments towards colleagues were substantiated.
Mr Waddell has an astonishing rags-to-riches story that sees him being taken into care at a children’s nursery in Fairlie, North Ayrshire, when he was four and living roughshod on the streets of Glasgow as a teenager before moving to London and becoming a taxi driver.
From his base in Kent, Teynham founded Big Motoring World, Britain’s second-largest second-hand car empire, which sells 60,000 engines a year and is now worth around £500 million after splitting into property and transport.
Holwood House, a Grade I-listed 56-room mansion near Bromley, Kent, was put on the market for £23.5 million last year, and Mr Waddell is reportedly building a pile similar to Spain’s billionaires’ row in Puerto Banus, where neighbors include Novak Djokovic and Simon Cowell.
The house is steeped in history and features a swimming pool complex, two gyms, a cinema, music room and tennis court, and is set within 50 acres of parkland.
But the businessman’s life was thrown into turmoil when he was sacked as the boss of his business in April 2024. He disputed the allegations after an internal investigation revealed he had made sexist, racist and abusive comments towards co-workers.
The businessman now claims private equity firm Freshstream, which owns a third of Big Motoring World Group, launched the “unfair” investigation and took advantage of his disabilities to oust him from his company.
Alan Gourgey KC, on behalf of Mr Waddell, told the court in written submissions that Freshstream had a contractual right to buy the remainder of the company as part of its investment and also had the right to “intervene” and remove Mr Waddell from management of the business under certain circumstances.
Bluebell Cars Holding Ltd claims that following a series of misconduct complaints by staff about Mr Waddell making racist, sexist or offensive remarks, the “intervention” clause was triggered and it was given the right to sack him and bring in new management.
But Mr Gourgey told the judge at the High Court, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, that the dismissal was unfair and the procedure used to remove him was unfair.
“These cases concern a group of companies, the majority shareholder of which is a plaintiff, a company owned by Mr Peter Waddell, and the minority shareholder of which is the brokerage of a private equity group called Freshstream,” he said.
“The actions arise from the investor’s actions in March and April 2024 in removing Mr. Waddell from his position as director and CEO of the Big Group and gaining control of the Big Group.
“The business was developed and built by Mr. Waddell over a period of 30 years, starting in the 1990s.”
In his witness statement, Mr Waddell describes a very difficult early childhood, including abuse and his transfer to a care home.
“A period of poverty, homelessness and even imprisonment followed. He lacked any formal education. From these extraordinarily difficult beginnings he gradually built one of the most successful car supermarket businesses.”
As of April 2022, the business employed approximately 600 staff with an annual turnover exceeding £370.96 million and making profits of £4.66 million.
“The investor… wanted to take control of the business. The plan devised to do this without exercising the option (to buy the entire company) was to exercise its rights to step in… to remove Mr. Waddell from his executive position and from his CEO position and then remove him from office.”
“The meticulous plan was put into action on March 7, 2024… Mr. Waddell has been suspended,” the lawyer said, adding that he would be dismissed following an internal disciplinary process.
Detailing some of the allegations, the barrister said one of the allegations was: “Mr Waddell referred to people of Asian ethnicity as ‘Hyundais’ when stating in front of Laurence Vaughan that he “had Asian friends”. “I call them Hyundais.”
In response, he told the court: “Mr Waddell recalls once telling Mr Vaughan a story about his friend Mr Malhotra and explaining that due to his dyslexia he had difficulty pronouncing the word ‘Hindu’ and instead thought Mr Malhotra was saying ‘Hyundai’ when talking about his culture and religion.”
Mr Malhotra’s evidence was that he tried to teach Mr Waddell how to pronounce the word ‘Hindu’ many times but he constantly mispronounced it. “He didn’t think there was anything derogatory about it and made fun of Mr. Waddell several times for it.”
Another allegation concerns him being accused of making offensive comments to a female cleaner.
The barrister said: “Mr Waddell’s evidence is that he had a playful relationship with her. [the cleaner] and would joke with him. He would tell her ‘you have a fat belly’. He told her, ‘If he withdraws, I will marry you because you buy nice cars for your girlfriends.’
“He thinks you said something like, ‘Well, I’m a married man, but I bet you want to have sex with me, too.’ He doesn’t remember saying, ‘I bet you want to suck my dick,’ but he can’t be sure. If he did, he regrets saying it.” [The cleaner’s] “The evidence is that the comment he claimed was clearly meant as a joke, that he interpreted it that way and that he did not feel offended or threatened.”
“Mr Gourgey argues that, given his disabilities, the procedure used to remove Mr Waddell was invalid and unfair, describing it as a “Kafka-esque process”.
He also complains that his request to have his appeal against dismissal evaluated by an independent investigator was rejected.
He told the court he wanted Mr Waddell to be reinstated and the directors appointed to replace him at the head of the company to be sacked.
He is also seeking £375,000 for unfair dismissal and an order “to sell the investor’s shares” [to him]…at fair value with any discount to be applied.”
“The petitioner’s contention is that from a very early stage of Freshstream’s consideration of investing in Big Group, he had in mind how Freshstream could achieve a minimum return of 1.45 on the proposed investment.”
“He simply wanted to be able to earn his return by taking the value of the assets out of the business rather than making distributions from profits actually made by the performance of the business.”
“Freshstream’s intention, from the outset of the potential investment, to exercise its control rights to liquidate the group’s assets unless it considers this to be the main sale objective.” [of the business for a profit] It was accessible.
“A plan was hatched to dismiss Mr. Waddell by these means. Needless to say, all of this took place behind Mr. Waddell’s back.”
“There is an implied obligation on the part of the investor to exercise his discretion proportionately, in good faith, for appropriate purposes, and not in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner,” the lawyer said.
“The petitioner’s submissions, which will be developed after having the benefit of hearing live evidence, are that there is no basis for the immediate dismissal of Mr. Waddell because the alleged conduct either did not occur at all or did not occur in a manner that would constitute gross misconduct on the part of Mr. Waddell.
“He went on to claim that Big Motoring World Group is not currently run by those responsible in the best interests of the business.
“While Large Group was highly profitable under Mr. Waddell, its performance deteriorated significantly under Mr. Waddell.” [the new chairman] and FS controlled board,” the lawyer said.
“There is no doubt that the company has suffered a significant financial loss in 2025. Management accounts for 2025 show a loss after tax of £8,330,604.
“To put the situation into perspective, the profit and loss account for 2023 was £1.75 million.
“In 2022 the Larger Group gross profit after tax was £8,573,653 and in 2021 the Larger Group made an after-tax profit of approximately £13 million.”
It added that consumer complaints had increased since 2024 and that the business’s Trustpilot and Google review scores had fallen since Mr Waddell’s sacking.
“Big Group’s performance since Mr Waddell’s removal from management has been disastrous. It is clear that if he had retained control he would have taken the business in a very different direction and the business would have been profitable.”
Accusing Freshstream of “unfairly prejudicial conduct”, the lawyer said: “It is alleged that the investor continued to prioritize his security interests over the objective interests of the business in these cases in the (false) belief that he could ultimately extract cash from the assets of the business to obtain a return on his investment.”
He also told the court that Big Motoring World Group had spent £10 million on the case against Mr Waddell since his dismissal.
The trial continues.
