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 and

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

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Francis Ho, Charles Russell Speechlys partner, was recently appointed chair of the Construction Law Committee of the City of London Law Society. He discusses the challenges of learning to lead, the importance of professional ethics, and the power of the written word, withNLJ

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Motor commissions & fiduciary duties

The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings

NLJ this week: The power of Interpol red notices

Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Approach with caution post-Mazur

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?

NLJ this week: Clarity on cladding

In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022

NLJ this week: Self-disclosure risks & rewards

Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations

Error message

Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade