Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

UK Supreme Court Hears Crucial Case on Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |

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

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It 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. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still 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 held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Tom is the Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

LFJ Podcast: Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet

By John Freund |

In this episode, we sat down with Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, co-founders of RiverFleet, a consultancy business specialising in the global Legal Finance market.  

RiverFleet works with clients to help navigate the complexities and idiosyncratic characteristics of the Legal Finance market and make the most of the financial opportunities and risk solutions the market has to offer for business and investment. 

RiverFleet has a highly experienced team, with specialist litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management expertise.  They offer a broad range of legal finance services tailor-made for a global client base, including investors, litigation finance funds, claimants, corporates, insolvency practitioners and law firms.

Watch the episode below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1ef7ZhgVw
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Insurers Intensify Offensive Against Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

In a fresh salvo that lays bare the brewing turf war between two sophisticated risk-transfer industries, a cadre of major U.S. insurers is doubling down on efforts to hobble third-party litigation finance.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that carriers including Chubb, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Sentry are leveraging their Washington lobbying muscle—and, critically, their underwriting leverage—to choke off capital flows to funders. Executives have signaled they will refuse to place policies for firms that invest in, or even trade with, outside funders, arguing that those investors fuel “social inflation” and nuclear verdicts that drive casualty-line losses. The aggressive posture follows the industry’s failed push to tack a 40% excise tax on litigation finance profits into the Trump administration’s sweeping budget bill earlier this month.

Yet the campaign has its detractors—even within the insurance ecosystem. Ed Gehres, managing partner at Invenio LLP, calls the stance “logically inconsistent,” noting that insurers themselves underwrite contingent-risk cover that is often purchased by the very funders they now vilify. Marsh McLennan, Lockton and others already offer bespoke judgment-preservation and work-in-progress (WIP) policies that dovetail neatly with funder portfolios. Daniela Raz, a Marsh SVP and Omni Bridgeway alum, underscored that such products can allow litigants to “retain more proceeds than they would in an uninsured litigation-finance transaction,” blurring any bright line insurers try to draw between their own risk-transfer solutions and funder capital.

Insurers’ hard-line rhetoric may complicate capacity-placement for funders and plaintiff firms, but it also highlights litigation finance’s growing systemic relevance. If carriers continue to walk the talk—declining placements or hiking premiums for funder-adjacent risks—expect a rise in alternative instruments (captives, bespoke wrap policies, even reinsurer-backed facilities) and deeper collaboration between funders and specialty brokers to fill the gap. The skirmish could ultimately accelerate product innovation on both sides of the ledger.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Shields Haptic’s Litigation-Funding Files From Apple

By John Freund |

A Northern District of California decision has handed patent plaintiff Haptic Inc. an important procedural win in its infringement fight with Apple over the iPhone’s “Back Tap” feature.

An article in eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin details Judge Jacqueline Corley’s ruling that work-product protection extends to Haptic’s damages analyses and related documents that were shared with a third-party litigation funder during due diligence.

Although Apple argued that those materials might reveal funder influence over strategy or settlement posture, the court held that Apple showed no “substantial need” sufficient to overcome the privilege. The opinion also rejects Apple’s broader bid for a blanket production of Haptic-funder communications, finding the parties had executed robust NDA and common-interest agreements that preserved confidentiality and avoided waiver. Only royalty-base spreadsheets directly relevant to Georgia-Pacific damages factors must be produced, but even those remain shielded from broader disclosure.

Judge Corley’s order is the latest in a string of decisions limiting discovery into financing arrangements unless a defendant can identify concrete, case-specific prejudice. For funders, the ruling underscores the importance of tight contractual language—and disciplined information flows—in preserving privilege. For corporate defendants, it signals that speculative concerns about control or conflicts will not, standing alone, open the door to funder dossiers.