header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 October 2025 / Fred Philpott
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Opinion , Consumer , Financial services litigation , Commercial , Transport
printer mail-detail

Motor finance: payback time?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
232366
Hot on the heels of the FCA’s proposed redress scheme, Fred Philpott considers the winners & losers

Following the Supreme Court’s decisions on motor finance commission, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a proposed redress scheme. On 7 October 2025, after the markets closed (the likely financial impact of the proposals dictated this timing, as the cost to the credit business was estimated in the proposal at £11bn), the FCA published for consultation the proposed scheme for the credit businesses involved (‘Consultation paper CP25/27: Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme’.

Background

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (trading as Motonovo Finance) and other cases [2025] UKSC 33, [2025] 3 WLR 423 (also known as Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd), the Supreme Court rejected allegations that motor finance commission constituted a bribe, or that there was a fiduciary relationship between the motor dealer and the credit provider. However, in the case of Johnson, it was held that there was an unfair relationship under s 140A

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
Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
Read All
Legal Action Group set out 2026 events calendar
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll