header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Johnson v FirstRand Bank

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
08 August 2025 / Toby Riley-Smith KC , Thomas Samuels , Douglas Maxwell
Issue: 8128 / Categories: Opinion , Consumer , Financial services litigation , Compensation
printer mail-detail
Despite the initial headlines, the decision in Johnson is likely to be the end of a new beginning. Toby Riley-Smith KC, Thomas Samuels & Douglas Maxwell set out why

Suppose that, in order to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank [2025] UKSC 33, we decided to go for lunch on a Sunday afternoon. We enter a pub and before ordering lunch ask (in the words of the Supreme Court) the wine waiter to recommend the best wine to pair with our lunch within our specified budget. Our knowledge of wine is very limited, and in truth our palates are quite unsophisticated. The waiter tells us he will get the best wine possible within our budget (he has even managed to get us to agree to go slightly beyond our budget because this one in their words is ‘very special’, ‘the best deal possible’, ‘perfect for us’). We are in a bit of a rush to discuss the impact of Johnson,

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
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll