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

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations

What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection?

NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR

Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?

NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap

When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases

When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ

Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026

NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue

Error message

Fiduciary duties: Close but not close enough?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean