header-logo header-logo

04 April 2025 / Fred Philpott
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Opinion , Consumer , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Commissions: what’s in a name?

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll