On 1 August 2025 the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd and the linked appeals ([2025] UKSC 33). The court considered whether dealers acted as fiduciary agents of their customers when arranging motor finance and whether undisclosed commissions could give rise to claims at common law.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court rejected the broad fiduciary-agency analysis that the Court of Appeal had relied on in October 2024. It held that, as a general rule, motor finance dealers do not owe customers a disinterested duty in selecting a credit product, and so most commissions cannot be challenged as secret commissions under agency law.
However, the court confirmed that the unfair relationship test under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 remains available. In Johnson, the size of the commission (around 55% of the total charge for credit) combined with the fact that the dealer was tied to the lender and had not disclosed the arrangement was held to give rise to an unfair relationship.
What it means for your claim
The judgment did not extinguish motor finance commission claims. It narrowed the legal route and left the FCA to design a redress scheme that captured the cases most likely to be unfair. That scheme has since been confirmed in PS26/3.
If your agreement involved an undisclosed Discretionary Commission Arrangement, a very high undisclosed commission, or a tied or exclusivity arrangement, you remain potentially eligible for compensation.