The High Court has refused an interim order that would have required Volkswagen Group Ireland Limited to keep three dealership contracts with Pat O’Leary in place until trial, finding that he had not met the higher legal threshold for mandatory relief.
Mr Justice Moriarty said Mr O’Leary had raised a bona fide question to be tried on the central issues. But the judge concluded he had not shown a strong case likely to succeed at the full hearing, as required for an order compelling the company to continue a relationship it said had lawfully ended.
The ruling concerned an interlocutory application in proceedings over the termination of contracts for sales of different Volkswagen products. The company gave notice on 18 April 2011, citing the need to reorganise its dealer network in light of market changes and the downturn in the Irish economy. It said the contracts would end on 30 April 2013. Mr O’Leary issued proceedings on 25 April 2013.
Mr O’Leary, who ran O’Leary’s Garage in Lissarda, Co Cork, argued that the company had not provided specific, reasoned grounds for excluding his dealership from its revised network. He also relied on earlier assurances, as described in his affidavits, that his Volkswagen contracts could only be ended for cause. The company disputed that such assurances could alter the written contracts and argued that the contracts had been terminated in accordance with their terms.
The judge said the alleged lack of specific reasons might support a claim for significant damages at trial. He also considered damages inadequate if Mr O’Leary ultimately succeeded and found the balance of convenience somewhat in his favour. However, he said the company was entitled to decide where to locate its principal Cork retail business, and that maintaining an unwanted dealership relationship pending trial would present difficulties. Those factors did not overcome the higher threshold for the principal order sought.
Mr O’Leary also sought to prevent the company from contacting his customers. The judge was inclined to grant that prohibitory relief, but noted the company’s readiness to give an undertaking on the issue. He said he would hear counsel. The judgment therefore did not resolve that separate request.