Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

Issue: 8136 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Liability , Consumer

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 Supreme Court confirmed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal expands Midlands residential development team

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn adds employee benefits and executive compensation practice in London with partner Richard Surtees

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron

Laytons ETL appoints new partner and head of intellectual property disputes

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Property cases reshape established principles

A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land

NLJ this week: Stress ruling raises the bar for employers

Employers cannot rely on wellbeing services alone to defend workplace stress claims after a High Court decision awarding almost £1m to an overworked employee

NLJ this week: Can Manchesterism revive access to justice?

Andy Burnham's brand of 'Manchesterism' could offer fresh thinking on legal aid and access to justice if it reaches Westminster, according to Roger Smith, NLJ columnist and former director of JUSTICE

NLJ this week: Constitutional conventions tested as power changes hands

The constitutional fallout from a change of prime minister, rather than the politics, is under scrutiny as questions arise over the limits of executive authority in a leadership transition

NLJ this week: Lawyers must become product designers

The legal profession is undergoing a fundamental shift from selling services to creating technology-enabled products, according to Professor Luke Mason, Head of School of Law at Regent's University London

Error message

Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron