Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Supreme Court Ruling on Car Finance Eases Pressure on Lenders

By Kevin Prior |
August 18, 2025

Supreme Court Ruling on Car Finance Eases Pressure on Lenders

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

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.

Case Developments Commercial

ALF-Member Backs Amazon UK Pricing Class Action

By John Freund |

A new opt-out competition claim aims squarely at Amazon, alleging price-parity tactics inflated costs for more than 45 million UK consumers. The Association of Consumer Support Organisations has filed for certification in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, instructing Stephenson Harwood with counsel from Monckton Chambers. The claim asserts Amazon’s marketplace policies restricted third-party sellers from offering better prices elsewhere—costs that, ACSO says, consumers ultimately bore.

The Global Legal Post notes a third-party litigation funder—confirmed as a member of the Association of Litigation Funders—is bankrolling the action, with identity to be revealed at certification. That disclosure posture aligns with the CAT’s funder-transparency expectations post-PACCAR while preserving competitive sensitivity during the early phase. On the defense side, Amazon labeled the case “without merit,” and emphasized consumer benefits and seller support on its platform. For claimant-side practitioners, the case illustrates how funders continue to underwrite large opt-out competition claims notwithstanding shifting case law on damages-based LFAs; structures are adjusting, not retreating.

If certified, the case will test funder appetite for big-ticket consumer competition matters amid the UK government’s newly announced review of the collective actions regime. It could also influence how funders structure returns (percentage vs. multiple, hybrids) to thread the needle between tribunal oversight and commercial viability. Watch for whether the CAT’s scrutiny of fees and “just and reasonable” outcomes further standardizes funding terms across UK opt-out claims.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

By Tom Webster |

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

The UK government is seeking views on the operation of litigation funding in the collective actions sphere, as part of its wider review of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law.

An open call for evidence by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) earlier this month featured a number of questions relating to litigation funding. These included whether the approach to funders’ share of settlement sums or damages is fair and proportionate; how the secondary market in litigation funding has developed and whether this has affected transparency and client confidentiality; whether funding provision for the full potential cost of claims is considered enough at the outset; and how conflict between litigation funders and class representatives should be approached.

As well as funding issues within the regime, the review will also look at scope and certification of cases; alternative dispute resolution, settlement and damages; and distribution of funds.

The DBT said it was time to review the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, as it is now ten years since its introduction through the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

It said: ‘This government is focused on economic growth, and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.

‘However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.’

Providing background to its review, the DBT noted that when it was introduced in 2015, the regime was intended to make it easier for consumers, including businesses, to seek redress where they have suffered loss due to breach of competition law. It said that since then, the regime has developed and expanded significantly: ‘tens of billions’ of pounds in damages have been claimed, and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds spent on legal fees. The DBT said this was far higher than anticipated in the original impact assessment, which estimated the total cost to business to be just £30.8 million per annum.

The DBT also noted that the type of case being brought before the CAT has also developed in ‘unexpected’ ways. When the regime was introduced, it was expected that most cases would be follow-on claims, brought after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or European Commission have already investigated anti-competitive behaviour and made an adverse finding. However, approximately 90% of the current caseload is now made up of standalone cases, the DBT said.

The government also pointed out that only one case (Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc [2024] CAT 76) has reached judgment in the CAT, with other certified cases generally concluding in settlement outside of court. This means that there has been limited precedent set on key issues such as damages and distribution, it asserted.

Proponents of the collective actions regime have pointed out that it is still relatively new, and has been subject to much challenge by defendants. But while it will inevitably take time to bed in, they argue that the regime is already effective in improving corporate behaviour and levelling the playing field for consumers.

The government said its review will also take into account existing work relevant to the regime, such as the Civil Justice Council (CJC)’s recent report on litigation funding.  

Its call for evidence will close on 14 October.