header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 April 2025 / Fred Philpott
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Opinion , Consumer , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Commissions: what’s in a name?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
214558
The Supreme Court case on motor finance commissions is based upon a simple economic falsity, argues Fred Philpott

The Supreme Court is currently hearing an appeal in Johnson v FirstRand Bank—motor finance cases where it is said there had been a ‘secret’ commission when a consumer got a car on hire purchase or conditional sale.

The whole premise of the case is false; there were no real ‘commissions’, let alone fiduciary relationships.

The basic facts

A consumer wants a car. They are at a car dealership, with cars on offer. The consumer needs finance. The dealer arranges it with a lender (a bank etc) (‘the creditor’). The consumer agrees the financial details (price of car, deposit, perhaps part exchange, term and monthly payments). It is that simple.

Then along came the claims management industry. On the back of the payment protection insurance (PPI) industry culminating in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2017] UKSC 23, it was ‘discovered’ that some of the interest in the monthly payments

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll