The air is heavy in the Federal Court in Melbourne as Justice Jonathan Beach delivers his verdict. Former Holden dealers, some who had represented the brand for generations, sit stone-faced as their last hope for what they considered fair compensation slips away. After more than four years of legal battles, accusations, and emotional testimony, the court has ruled in favor of General Motors (GM), rejecting the dealers’ claims that the American automotive giant acted unconscionably when it abruptly withdrew Holden from the Australian market in February 2020.
“It’s absolutely gutting,” whispers Peter Hanley, a third-generation Holden dealer from regional Victoria, his voice barely audible as he stares at the floor. “My grandfather started our dealership in 1949. My father expanded it during the Kingswood era. And I’m the one who has to lock the doors for good.”
The landmark case, which sought approximately $650 million in damages, represented one of the most significant disputes between a manufacturer and its dealer network in Australian history. The ruling brings a bitter conclusion to what many dealers describe as a traumatic chapter in their lives, while potentially setting precedents that could influence manufacturer-dealer relationships for years to come.
The Verdict and Its Implications
Justice Beach’s comprehensive 240-page judgment, delivered after 28 days of hearings and thousands of pages of evidence, found that while GM’s exit was undoubtedly devastating for dealers, the company’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for unconscionable conduct under Australian consumer law.
“The evidence does not establish that GM engaged in a deliberate strategy to mislead dealers about its intentions in Australia,” Justice Beach stated. “While the timing and manner of the announcement was understandably shocking to dealers, business decisions of this nature, even those with severe consequences for other parties, do not necessarily constitute unconscionable conduct in the legal sense.”
The court rejected the dealers’ central claim that GM had deliberately misled them by encouraging continued investment in facilities and operations while secretly planning to exit the Australian market. Justice Beach found that while GM had been considering various scenarios for Holden’s future, including potential withdrawal, the final decision was made relatively close to the public announcement.
“The contemporaneous internal documents demonstrate that multiple options were being evaluated up until late 2019,” the judgment noted. “While withdrawal was one scenario being considered, it was not a foregone conclusion until the final decisions were made at GM’s global headquarters.”
The ruling also addressed the compensation package offered by GM, which provided dealers with roughly $1,500 per vehicle based on their sales over a specific period, plus additional payments for facilities, stock, and other assets. The court found that while dealers might reasonably have hoped for more generous terms, the package was not so manifestly inadequate as to be unconscionable.
For the 185 former Holden dealers who joined the class action, the verdict represents not just the end of their legal battle, but for many, the final chapter in their association with a brand that was once synonymous with Australian motoring.
The Human Cost Behind the Judgment
In the café across from the Federal Court, I sit with James Morrison, whose family operated a Holden dealership in suburban Sydney for 62 years. His hands shake slightly as he stirs his untouched coffee.
“We’re not just talking about buildings and cars,” he says, his voice tightening. “We’re talking about people’s lives. In our case, we had 45 staff members, some who’d been with us for over 30 years. When Holden pulled out, we tried to keep everyone on, even converted to a used car operation for a while, but it wasn’t sustainable.”
Morrison ultimately closed his business in mid-2021, laying off the last of his staff and selling the property that had been in his family for three generations. He estimates his personal losses at over $4 million, even after the GM compensation payment.
“The compensation didn’t come close to covering the investments we’d made in the business,” he explains. “We’d renovated our showroom in 2018 because Holden insisted it needed to meet their new global identity standards. That alone cost $1.2 million. They knew – they must have known – that they were considering pulling out when they asked us to make those investments.”
Stories like Morrison’s are common among the former dealer network. Many had recently renovated facilities, purchased additional property for expansion, or invested in specialized equipment and training at GM’s behest, only to have the brand disappear almost overnight.
Sarah Chen, who ran her family’s Holden dealership in Brisbane until its closure, points to the psychological impact of the sudden shutdown. “It wasn’t just the financial loss, though that was substantial,” she tells me over the phone after the verdict. “It was the betrayal. We’d been Holden people our whole lives. My earliest memories are sitting in the showroom while my dad worked. It was our identity.”
Chen’s dealership had employed 38 people, including several mechanics who had trained specifically on Holden vehicles and had decades of expertise with the brand. “Some of them had never worked anywhere else,” she says. “They started as apprentices with us. Finding them equivalent positions was almost impossible, especially during COVID.”
The Compensation Dispute
At the heart of the legal dispute was the adequacy of GM’s compensation package offered to dealers following the shutdown announcement. GM provided an average of approximately $1,500 per vehicle based on a dealer’s sales over a defined period, with additional payments for facilities, stock, and other assets.
The dealers’ legal team, led by prominent class action firm HWL Ebsworth, argued that this amount drastically undervalued the true worth of the franchises, which should have been calculated based on future earnings potential over the expected life of their dealer agreements.
According to materials presented in court, dealer valuations typically range from $2,500 to $4,000 per vehicle in similar situations internationally, significantly more than GM’s offer. Dealers also argued that the compensation failed to account for goodwill, brand value, and the investments made based on GM’s assurances about Holden’s future in Australia.
GM, represented by King & Wood Mallesons, countered that the compensation was fair given market conditions and Holden’s declining sales performance in the years leading up to the exit. The company’s representatives pointed out that Holden’s market share had fallen from 15.2% in 2002 to just 4.1% by 2019, suggesting the brand’s future prospects were already limited.
In his verdict, Justice Beach acknowledged the competing valuations but ultimately concluded that determining a “fair” compensation amount involved business judgments rather than clear legal standards of unconscionability.
“The fact that dealers might have preferred a more generous package, or that other manufacturers might have offered different terms in broadly similar circumstances, does not in itself render GM’s conduct unconscionable,” the judgment stated.
GM’s Response and Perspective
Following the verdict, General Motors released a brief statement welcoming the court’s decision and reiterating that it had acted in good faith throughout the withdrawal process.
“General Motors is pleased with the Federal Court’s decision, which confirms that our compensation package for dealers was fair and reasonable,” the statement read. “The decision to retire the Holden brand in Australia was difficult but necessary given the changing global automotive landscape and the significant challenges facing the Holden brand specifically.”
GM has consistently maintained that the decision to withdraw Holden from Australia was part of a broader strategic shift away from right-hand drive markets globally, rather than a targeted action against Australian dealers. The company points to similar exits from other right-hand drive markets including the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Africa as evidence of this broader strategy.
Marc Ebolo, the former Managing Director of GM Australia and New Zealand during the withdrawal period, had testified during the trial that the final decision to exit Australia came after years of declining performance and failed attempts to revitalize the brand.
“We explored multiple options to make Holden viable in Australia, including potential partnerships with other manufacturers and transitioning to an all-SUV lineup,” Ebolo stated in his testimony. “Ultimately, the business case didn’t support continuing operations given the significant investment that would have been required to develop competitive new right-hand drive products.”
For dealers, however, these explanations ring hollow. Many point to communications from GM as late as December 2019 – just two months before the shutdown announcement – that referenced long-term plans for the Holden brand and encouraged continued investment in facilities and operations.
The Broader Impact on Australian Automotive Retail
The court’s decision could have significant implications for automotive franchising in Australia, according to industry experts. The ruling essentially confirms that manufacturers maintain considerable flexibility to exit markets or terminate dealer agreements, provided they offer some form of compensation and follow the technical requirements of their contracts.
Automotive law specialist Jennifer Rodriguez, who was not involved in the case but has followed it closely, believes the outcome may accelerate regulatory changes. “This verdict will likely strengthen calls for more robust franchising protections specific to the automotive sector,” she told me after reviewing the judgment.
Indeed, the Holden withdrawal prompted the Australian government to introduce new automotive franchising regulations in 2021, which require manufacturers to provide more notice before terminations and mandate “fair and reasonable” compensation based on multiple factors.
“Unfortunately for the Holden dealers, these regulations came too late,” Rodriguez notes. “They might have had a stronger case under the new framework, which specifically addresses many of the issues central to this dispute.”
For current dealers representing other brands, the verdict serves as a sobering reminder of the inherent risks in the franchised dealer model, where substantial investments must be made with no guarantee of long-term security.
“Every dealer in Australia was watching this case,” says Michael Thomson, who represents a Japanese brand in Adelaide and serves on the Australian Automotive Dealer Association board. “The outcome puts us all on notice that we need to be extremely cautious about facility investments and long-term commitments, because ultimately, we have limited protection if a manufacturer decides to exit.”
The Political Response
The court decision has also drawn reactions from politicians who had previously advocated for the Holden dealers. Senator Deborah O’Neill, who led a parliamentary inquiry into GM’s conduct following the Holden withdrawal, expressed disappointment with the verdict.
“This outcome is devastating for hundreds of Australian small business owners who invested their lives in representing the Holden brand,” Senator O’Neill said in a statement. “While the court has found GM’s actions didn’t meet the legal threshold for unconscionable conduct, many Australians would question whether the company met its moral obligations to dealers who had represented them loyally for decades.”
The parliamentary inquiry had previously found that GM had “damaged the Holden brand” through its treatment of dealers and recommended strengthened protections for automotive retailers – recommendations that informed the subsequent regulatory changes.
Federal Minister for Small and Family Business, Julie Collins, acknowledged the verdict while highlighting the government’s ongoing commitment to fair franchise relationships. “While we respect the court’s decision, our government remains focused on ensuring fair outcomes in franchising relationships, particularly in the automotive sector where the power imbalance can be substantial,” Collins stated.
What Comes Next for Former Dealers
For the former Holden dealers, the court’s decision leaves few remaining options. While an appeal is technically possible, legal experts suggest the comprehensive nature of Justice Beach’s judgment makes a successful appeal unlikely.
Some dealers have already transitioned to representing other brands, though many report that the process was complicated by the poor timing of Holden’s exit, which coincided with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We eventually secured a Chinese brand,” explains former Holden dealer Robert Dwyer, whose family business had represented Holden in regional New South Wales for 53 years. “But the transition period was brutal. We lost about 60% of our revenue overnight when Holden pulled out, and it took nearly 18 months to get the new franchise up and running properly. We’re still not back to where we were.”
Others, like Peter Hanley who I met at the court, have exited the automotive industry entirely. “After what GM did, I couldn’t bring myself to trust another manufacturer,” he says. “We sold the property and I’ve invested in a completely different business. At least now I control my own destiny.”
The dealers’ legal team has indicated they will review the judgment in detail before making any decisions about potential appeals. In a brief statement, lead lawyer Roxanne Mak expressed disappointment with the outcome while acknowledging the comprehensive nature of the court’s consideration.
“While we respect the court’s decision, we remain of the view that the dealers were treated unfairly in this process,” Mak stated. “We will carefully review the judgment with our clients before determining next steps.”
An Era Ends Not With a Bang, But a Whimper
As the court empties and former dealers drift away in small, subdued groups, there’s a palpable sense that this verdict represents the final chapter in Holden’s Australian story. A brand that once commanded 50% of the Australian car market and was woven into the national identity has ended its journey not with celebrations of its legacy, but with bitter legal disputes and disappointment.
James Morrison, finishing his now-cold coffee, offers a final reflection that seems to capture the sentiment of many former dealers. “The saddest part is that it didn’t have to end this way,” he says quietly. “If GM had been transparent about their plans and worked with us on a gradual, dignified exit, we could have managed the transition much better. Instead, they pulled the rug out overnight and left us to pick up the pieces.”
As he gathers his things to leave, Morrison pauses, looking momentarily lost. “I still have the first Holden brochure my grandfather ever received, from 1948,” he says. “It’s framed in my home office. It says ‘Australia’s Own Car’ across the top. Funny how things change, isn’t it?”
With that, he walks away, another figure in the long procession of Australians whose lives and livelihoods were bound up with a brand that, despite today’s legal victory, has left a legacy more complicated than anyone could have imagined when the first 48-215 rolled off the production line in 1948.
Also Read –
Toyota Responds Strongly To Unfounded Criticism Of The Prado