Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

24 October 2025 / Mary Young

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 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

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?

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.

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS

Read All

Who’s on the 2026 silk list?

The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round

NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law

Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes

NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract

Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent

NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?

Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first

NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live

In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss

Error message

Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp