Three car finance customers bought cars on credit arranged through dealers. The dealers received commission from lenders. The customers argued that the commission arrangements created liability for the lenders, including through fiduciary duty, bribery-style arguments and unfair relationship provisions.
Selected cases
UK Supreme Court · [2025] UKSC 33
Hopcraft v Close Brothers; Johnson and Wrench v FirstRand
The UK Supreme Court considered motor finance commissions, fiduciary duties, bribery arguments and unfair relationship claims.
UK Supreme Court1 Aug 2025
Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.
Get legal helpStart here
Quick read
- Commission disclosure and customer finance journeys need careful design.
- The UK Supreme Court considered motor finance commissions, fiduciary duties, bribery arguments and unfair relationship claims.
Use this to check
- Review commission and referral disclosures in customer finance journeys
- Do not treat regulatory fairness as a box-tick disclosure exercise
- Keep lender, broker and dealer responsibilities documented
Decision snapshot
What happened
- Three car finance customers bought cars on credit arranged through dealers.
- The dealers received commission from lenders.
- The customers argued that the commission arrangements created liability for the lenders, including through fiduciary duty, bribery-style arguments and unfair relationship provisions.
What the court had to decide
- The Court had to decide whether the dealer brokers owed fiduciary duties, whether the commission arrangements supported bribery or accessory liability claims, and how the Consumer Credit Act unfair relationship test applied.
What the court decided
- The Supreme Court allowed the lenders' appeals on the fiduciary, bribery and accessory liability arguments, but Mr Johnson succeeded on an unfair relationship claim under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act on the facts.
Practical impact
Practical read
- Commission disclosure and customer finance journeys need careful design.
- Even where broad fiduciary or bribery claims fail, regulated credit fairness can still bite if the customer journey, disclosure and economics are unfair.
Useful next steps
- Review commission and referral disclosures in customer finance journeys
- Do not treat regulatory fairness as a box-tick disclosure exercise
- Keep lender, broker and dealer responsibilities documented
How businesses should read it
Commission disclosure and customer finance journeys need careful design. Even where broad fiduciary or bribery claims fail, regulated credit fairness can still bite if the customer journey, disclosure and economics are unfair.
Key takeaways
- Review commission and referral disclosures in customer finance journeys
- Do not treat regulatory fairness as a box-tick disclosure exercise
- Keep lender, broker and dealer responsibilities documented
Related topics
How Sprintlaw can help
Update history
Case13 June 2026
Motor finance commission case added as a finance and disclosure explainer
Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench is now tracked for commission disclosure, regulated credit fairness and customer finance journeys.