The Supreme Court’s judgment in the motor finance cases sheds light on the law on fiduciary duties, writes Mary Young
- The Supreme Court judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd and other cases confirmed that the existence of a fiduciary duty is a necessary condition of liability for civil bribery.
- The court found that car dealers assuming the position of intermediaries or brokers between customers and lenders for car finance did not take on fiduciary roles.
- This article also considers the Supreme Court decision in Recovery Partners GP Ltd and another v Rukhadze and others, which also involved consideration of issues relating to fiduciary duties and their breach.
The combined motor finance cases now determined by the Supreme Court in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd and other cases [2025] UKSC 33 (also known as Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd) have attracted significant interest in the civil fraud world because of the guidance provided in respect of the law of bribery and secret profits.
The Supreme Court confirmed that
