Johnson (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2024/0158

Parties

Appellant(s)

FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance

Respondent(s)

Marcus Gervase Johnson

Intervener(s)

Financial Conduct Authority

National Franchised Dealers Association

Issue

The appeal requires the determination of the following sub-issues: (i) Does, or should, the law recognise a distinct tort of bribery? (ii) If such a tort is recognised, what is the nature of the duty or relationship (here between dealer and customer) that must exist in order for the tort to be engaged? (iii) Relatedly, what level of disclosure will prevent liability for bribery from arising? (iv) In Mr Johnson’s case, was the relationship between customer and lender “unfair” for the purposes of the CCA?

Facts

The claimants in these three linked appeals each bought cars on credit supplied by either FirstRand Bank Limited or Close Brothers Limited. On each relevant occasion, only one offer of finance was presented to, and accepted by, the claimant. FirstRand Bank Limited provided the finance in Mr Johnson’s and Mr Wrench’s transactions. The lender in the Hopcrafts’ case was Close Brothers Limited. In each instance, the dealer made a profit on the sale of the car but also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them. In the Hopcrafts’ case, the commission was kept secret from the claimants. Mr Wrench and Mr Johnson were both unaware that a commission would be paid, but the lender’s standard terms and conditions made reference to the payment of a commission (of unspecified amount). Mr Johnson was also supplied with a document, which he signed, indicating that the dealer could receive a commission from the lender. Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court. All three claimants contended that the commissions amounted to bribes at common law, or to secret profits received by the dealers as fiduciaries in equity. Mr Wrench was successful before the District Judge at first instance but the Circuit Judge allowed the lender’s appeal. Mr Johnson’s claims were unsuccessful at first instance, as well as on first appeal except for his claim under the CCA which was remitted to the District Judge for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal subsequently granted permission for a second appeal in both cases. The Hopcrafts’ claims were unsuccessful at first instance and their first appeal to a Circuit Judge was then transferred to the Court of Appeal. The customers were all successful in the Court of Appeal either on the basis of the tort of bribery or on the basis of dishonest assistance. Mr Johnson was also successful in his claim under the CCA. The lenders now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

22 November 2024

Judgment appealed

Linked cases

Judgment details

Judgment date

1 August 2025

Neutral citation

[2025] UKSC 33

Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lord Hodge

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Briggs

Lord Hamblen

Hearing dates

Full hearing

Start date

1 April 2025

End date

3 April 2025

Watch hearings

Back to top