Issue:
8117
/
Categories:
Features
,
Company
,
Liability
,
Financial services litigation
,
Consumer
,
Constitutional law
.jpg?sfvrsn=5b7e4ccb_1)
Ceri Morgan analyses the response to lender liability in motor finance broker commission cases
- In Hopcraft, the Court of Appeal found lenders liable for undisclosed commissions paid to secondhand car dealers arranging finance for their customers.
- The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, with the Financial Conduct Authority intervening to express concerns that the Court of Appeal’s approach went ‘too far’.
- The article explores the market response to the Court of Appeal’s decision, the current state of the law in terms of the duties owed by motor dealer brokers, and the potential impact on the separation of powers debate.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (t/a MotoNovo Finance) [2024] EWCA Civ 1282 (Hopcraft) has sparked significant debate within the legal and financial sectors. The ruling, which has since been appealed to the Supreme Court, found lenders liable for undisclosed (or only partially disclosed) commissions paid to secondhand car dealers who were also arranging the finance for their customers.
The
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=1da8eda2_1)
