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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll