Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Regulatory Issues

A Significant Court of Appeal Ruling Will Boost Claims Relating to Undisclosed Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |
October 28, 2024

A Significant Court of Appeal Ruling Will Boost Claims Relating to Undisclosed Motor Finance Commissions

The following article was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

A Court of Appeal ruling last week is a very positive development for the many consumers currently seeking justice after discovering they were charged commissions that they were not properly told about when they took out motor finance.

With a large number of such claims being brought in the County Courts, the Court of Appeal heard three cases jointly in order to deal with some key issues that commonly arise.

In Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, Wrench v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal foundin favour of all three claimants, allowing their appeals.

The cases concerned the common scenario in which a dealer asks the consumer if they want finance; and if so, the dealer gathers their financial details and takes this information to a lender or panel of lenders.

The dealer then presents the finance offer to the consumer on the basis that they have selected an offer that is competitive and suitable. If the consumer accepts it, the dealer sells the car to the lender, and the lender enters into a credit agreement with the consumer.

The consumer will be aware of the price for the car, the sum of any downpayment, the rate of interest on the loan element of the arrangement, and how much they will have to pay the lender in instalments over the period of the credit agreement. They would expect the dealer to make a profit on the sale of the car. But – at least until the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new rules with effect from 28 January 2021 – the consumer might be surprised to discover that the dealer who arranged the finance on their behalf also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them; which was financed by the interest charged under the credit agreement.

In this situation, the dealer is essentially fulfilling two different commercial roles – a seller of cars, and also a credit broker – in what the consumer is likely to see as a single transaction. The commission is paid in a side arrangement between lender and dealer, to which the consumer is not party. Sometimes there might be some reference to that arrangement in the body of the credit agreement, in the lender’s standard terms and conditions, or in one of the other documents presented to the consumer. But even if there is, and even if the consumer were to read the small print, it would not necessarily reveal the full details – including the amount of the commission and how it is calculated.

Turning specifically to the three cases before the Court of Appeal, in one of these, Hopcraft, there was no dispute that the commission was kept secret from the claimant. In the other two, Wrench and Johnson, the claimant did not know and was not told that a commission was to be paid. However, the lender’s standard terms and conditions referred to the fact that ‘a commission may be payable by us [ie. the lender] to the broker who introduced the transaction to us.’

In Johnson alone, the dealer / broker supplied the claimant with a document called ‘Suitability Document Proposed for Mr Marcus Johnson’, which he signed. This said, near the beginning, ‘…we may receive a commission from the product provider’.

Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. All three claims failed in the County Courts, but in March this year, Birss LJ accepted their transfer up to the Court of Appeal, directing that the three appeals should be heard together – and acknowledging that a large number of such claims were coming through the County Court, and an authoritative ruling on the issues was needed.

After considering the issues in detail, the Court of Appeal allowed all three appeals. It found the dealers were also acting as credit brokers and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. The court found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. If there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can only be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court heldthat the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

This ruling will prove hugely significant to the large number of similar claims currently being brought in the lower courts; and Sentry Funding is supporting many cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance.

We can now expect many more such claims to start progressing through the County Courts.

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.

Commercial

Court of Appeal’s First UPC Panel Draws Attention from Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.

Commercial

UK Government Signals Funding Crackdown in Claims Sector Reform

By John Freund |

The UK government has signalled a renewed regulatory focus on the claims management and litigation funding sectors, as part of a broader effort to curb what it characterises as excessive or speculative claims activity. The move forms part of a wider review of the consumer redress and claims ecosystem, with third-party funding increasingly drawn into policy discussions around cost, transparency, and accountability.

An article in Solicitor News reports that ministers are examining whether litigation funding and related financial arrangements are contributing to an imbalance in the claims market, particularly in mass claims and collective redress actions. While litigation funding has historically operated outside the scope of formal regulation in England and Wales, policymakers are now considering whether additional oversight is required to protect consumers and defendants alike. This includes potential scrutiny of funding agreements, funder returns, and the role of intermediaries operating between claimants, law firms, and capital providers.

The renewed attention comes amid political pressure to rein in what critics describe as a growing “claims culture,” with the government keen to demonstrate action ahead of future legislative reforms. Industry stakeholders have cautioned, however, that overly restrictive measures could limit access to justice, particularly in complex or high-cost litigation where claimants would otherwise be unable to pursue meritorious claims. Litigation funders have long argued that their capital plays a stabilising role by absorbing risk and enabling legal representation in cases involving significant power imbalances.

While no formal proposals have yet been published, the article suggests that funding models linked to claims management companies may face particular scrutiny, especially where aggressive marketing or fee structures are perceived to undermine consumer interests. Any regulatory changes would likely build on existing reforms affecting claims management firms and contingency-style legal services.