header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2025 / Eddie Flanagan , Harpreet Sandhu
Issue: 8108 / Categories: Features , Commercial , Consumer , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

Motor finance commissions: has the dust settled?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
211159
With shockwaves from the motor finance commissions case continuing to reverberate, Eddie Flanagan & Harpreet Sandhu explain why it is time for the financial services sector to reflect on compliance & customer trust
  • The Johnson v FirstRand Bank case ruling on undisclosed motor finance commissions has led to industry shockwaves, and massive compensation provisions, raising concerns over rising regulatory costs.
  • The judgment highlights the need for transparency in the form of clear disclosure, stronger consumer protections, and practical, balanced regulations.
  • The wider implications of this case include heightened scrutiny, which challenges financial institutions to adapt while balancing compliance costs and innovation. 

In November 2024, Santander UK announced that it had set aside £295m to potentially compensate motor finance customers following the landmark Court of Appeal judgment in the combined cases of Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282 (‘Johnson’). This provision significantly impacted Santander’s quarterly profits, which fell to £143m

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
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll