header-logo header-logo

12 September 2025 / Ceri Morgan
Issue: 8130 / Categories: Opinion , Bribery
printer mail-detail

Fiduciary relationships reshaped

229573
Johnson v FirstRand Bank signals a return to orthodoxy on fiduciary duties & common law bribery, writes Ceri Morgan

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has reshaped the landscape of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd [2025] UKSC 33.

The judgment restores orthodoxy in the law of fiduciary duties and common law bribery, while simultaneously providing a basis and benchmark for future motor finance commission claims under s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974).

Background

The three conjoined appeals considered the sale of motor finance to financially unsophisticated consumers buying second-hand cars. The car dealerships arranged the finance the buyers required, receiving a commission from the lenders, which was undisclosed or only partially disclosed to the consumers. The claimants alleged that these payments were unlawful, and brought proceedings against the lenders.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in October 2024 ([2024] EWCA Civ 1282), which found the lenders liable, sent shockwaves through the financial markets and sparked significant legal debate. The lenders appealed

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll