Consumer credit
Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (trading as Motonovo Finance) and other cases [2025] UKSC 33
The Supreme Court, in three conjoined appeals concerning the payment of commission by finance lenders to motor dealers in connection with the provision of finance for the hire purchase of cars, found that such commissions were neither bribes under common law nor secret profits in equity due to the absence of fiduciary duties between dealers and customers. Each of the customers had brought proceedings against the lenders, claiming that the commissions amounted to bribes, or to secret profits received by the dealers as fiduciaries. The court held that the customers’ claims against the lenders in equity and in tort could not succeed. The lenders’ appeals in the Hopcraft and Wrench cases, and in the Johnson case so far as it was based on tort or equity, were allowed. The court also held that Mr Johnson is entitled to succeed in his claim under s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but for reasons that differ from those given by the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
