Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le of Siltstone Capital
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Car Finance Mis-Selling: What the UK Supreme Court Verdict Really Means

By Kevin Prior |
August 18, 2025

Car Finance Mis-Selling: What the UK Supreme Court Verdict Really Means

The following article was contributed by Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal Funding.

On Friday 1st August 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on car finance commission complaints. While banks avoided the massive £44 billion liability some predicted, one customer called Johnson won his case – and that victory has opened the door for thousands of similar claims totalling somewhere between £9bn and £18bn – still a huge market.

The Bottom Line: Johnson proved his finance deal was “unfair” because:

  • The dealer received a massive undisclosed commission (55% of all the interest he paid)
  • He was misled about getting independent advice when the dealer was actually tied to one lender
  • Important information was hidden in small print

What This Means

The Supreme Court has given us a clear roadmap. Claims will succeed where customers can show:

  • Excessive hidden commissions (Johnson’s was 55% of his interest payments)
  • Poor disclosure – burying commission details in terms & conditions isn’t enough
  • Misleading sales practices – claiming to offer “best deals” while being tied to one lender
  • Pre-2021 agreements often have the strongest cases

Why This Is Good News

  • No government bailout risk – the ruling removes fears of political intervention to protect banks
  • Clear success criteria – we now know exactly what makes a winning case
  • Settlement pressure – lenders know more claims are coming and want to avoid court
  • Immediate opportunity – claims can start now without waiting for regulators

Our Position

Our cautious approach to date has been vindicated. While others rushed in with untested legal theories, we waited for clarity. Now we have it.

The car finance opportunity is very much alive – it just requires smarter case selection. We’re actively evaluating opportunities and expect to be funding cases that meet the Johnson criteria in the coming weeks.

The FCA will announce their compensation scheme plans in October, but the legal pathway is already clear. Well-selected cases with Johnson-style facts have strong prospects of success.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Kevin Prior

Kevin Prior

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Legal Funding Targets Charter School Safety Gaps

By John Freund |
Litigation finance is moving into education safety disputes, with backers supporting claims over preventable injuries tied to lapses at charter schools. In the Tracy case, plaintiffs’ counsel has secured outside capital to pursue allegations centered on inadequate safeguards and uneven enforcement, aiming to drive remedial measures alongside damages. An article in Daily Journal states that the Tracy case highlights safety standards failures and enforcement gaps in charter schools, and that litigation funding is being used to sustain legal efforts intended to compel stronger protocols and clearer lines of responsibility. The report notes that financing can help develop the evidentiary record—through inspections, training audits, and expert testimony—necessary to test whether supervision, reporting, and facilities maintenance met applicable requirements. The matter underscores the fragmented oversight of charter operators, where responsibilities can be split among authorizers, management organizations, and campuses, complicating accountability. Backers view the matter as a test of whether targeted civil litigation can close regulatory gaps without waiting for legislative change. For funders, such matters present impact-oriented opportunities but require careful assessment of immunities, policy limits, and the feasibility of non-monetary outcomes. If results in Tracy prove durable, similar models could emerge in other jurisdictions where charter oversight is diffuse.
Case Developments Commercial

Eco Buildings Group Secures Litigation Funding for €195m ICC Claim

By John Freund |

Eco Buildings Group said it has secured full litigation funding from Atticus Litigation Financing for its €195 million arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration arising out of alleged losses tied to actions by government agencies in Kosovo. In the same disclosure, the company confirmed that BSA Law has been retained on a conditional fee arrangement and noted that tribunal nominations are underway.

The announcement identifies Atticus as adviser-backed by industry veteran Nick Rowles-Davies and indicates the fund is scheduled to commence operations in October 2025.

The interim-results RNS, dated September 30, 2025, upgrades the company’s July communication—which described an “offer of full litigation funding”—to a confirmation that funding is now in place, while also updating expected fund timing. Together with the CFA, the package points to a blended financing structure designed to carry the matter through to award.

For funders and counterparties, the key near-term questions are procedural: how quickly the tribunal is fully constituted; whether early case-management orders shed light on timetable, bifurcation, or disclosure; and the degree to which funding terms (to the extent disclosed) signal stamina through potential post-award phases.

From Eco Buildings’ perspective, securing third-party capital at this stage helps ring-fence legal spend and adverse-costs exposure during the most resource-intensive portions of the case. For Atticus, the mandate offers an inaugural high-profile deployment in commercial arbitration, with advisory pedigree that will be familiar to market participants.

Case Developments Commercial

LCM Hit by Adverse UK High Court Ruling in Funded Case

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) said the High Court in London has delivered judgment against its funded party in a commercial claim, marking a setback for the ASX-listed funder. The investment was co-funded with £9.9m from LCM’s balance sheet and £6.1m from Fund I, and the company reiterated that adverse-costs exposure is backed by after-the-event (ATE) insurance. LCM added that it will confer with counsel on next steps, a process that typically encompasses prospects of appeal, costs issues, or settlement positioning.

In the regulatory notice, LCM set out the key economics of the position and clarified the presence of ATE cover—detail that offers unusual transparency around downside risk management. The co-funding split between the corporate balance sheet and the pooled vehicle means any financial impact is dispersed rather than concentrated in a single pocket of capital.

While ATE insurance is not a profit buffer, it is intended to shoulder the counterparty costs risk that can materialize after an adverse outcome, and it can meaningfully limit cash outflow volatility as the matter moves through post-judgment phases.

The disclosure underscores the familiar dynamics of portfolio funding—wins and losses arrive unevenly, but disciplined structuring (co-funding, ATE, and aligned counsel) is designed to keep drawdowns contained. LFJ will track any developments around appeal decisions, cost orders, or portfolio commentary tied to this case as LCM executes its review with counsel.