Johnson v FirstRand Car Finance Supreme Court Decision Day 3:

Sam Ward
May 1
4 min read

The Sentinel Legal team stand for their picture taken in an alley way — The Sentinel Legal Car Finance Claims team

The Biggest Car Finance Supreme Court decision of the Year

The third and final day of the Supreme Court hearing in Johnson v FirstRand was the final day for the biggest car finance supreme court decision of all time. This wasn’t just the conclusion to a three-day legal battle, it was the closing act in what’s become the most important consumer finance appeal in decades. It was also the day where the Justices pressed hardest. And it was clear: they were no longer simply listening, they were shaping the judgment.

This is everything you need to know about what happened in the Supreme Court with Johnson V FirstRand and why it matters.

The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

At the heart of this case is a simple but powerful question: Can banks and lenders be held accountable for paying secret commissions to car dealers and brokers without telling the customer?

The FCA confirmed that over 30 million people were sold car finance deals where a dealer or broker was secretly earning thousands in commission. Often, those same brokers chose a more expensive loan, just so they could pocket more. And the customer never had a clue.

The Supreme Court spent Day 3 digging into whether that is just poor industry practice or whether it crosses the line into dishonesty, breach of duty, and unfairness under the law.

Robert Weir KC: The Final Defence of Consumer Rights

Robert Weir KC, representing consumers, delivered a powerful closing submission. His message was clear:

"The lenders set up these arrangements. They paid the commissions. They knew the customer wasn’t told. And they let it happen. That is dishonesty."

Throughout the day, Weir returned to a core theme: consumers are entitled to trust the person arranging their loan.That trust is broken when commission payments are hidden, and even more so when lenders know they’re hidden, but do nothing.

He went further:

"Regulation is not a shield. Lenders can't hide behind minimum compliance. Fairness is a legal duty, not a guideline."

This point landed. There was no visible pushback from the Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices: Probing for Precision

This wasn’t a passive bench. The Justices were active, sharp, and at times relentless. Lord Briggs, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, Lord Hodge and Lord Lloyd-Jones each challenged Weir on the boundaries of dishonesty, on the standard for disclosure, and on what consumers actually need to know.

One particularly tense exchange explored whether saying “a commission may be paid” was enough.

Weir's reply:

“The problem is that the consumer is told nothing about the amount, and what happens is that the amount is fixed by negotiation between the dealer and the lender, or possibly unilaterally by the dealer.”

The Court appeared sympathetic. The general tone suggested they agreed that formality isn’t enough, the law demands substance.

Rob Weir KC Supreme Court — Rob Weir KC - Supreme Court

Why Johnson V FirstRand Mattered Most

Day 3 mattered because it forced the Court to confront what happens next. This wasn’t just about who wins or loses. It was about what rules should apply in every future car finance case in the country.

What counts as a fair relationship?
Does a lender have to explain how the dealer is getting paid?
If a lender doesn’t, and the customer overpays, should they be refunded?

The Justices asked these questions. And Robert Weir KC had answers. Strong ones.

What the Supreme Court Will Now Decide

We now await a judgment that could:

Set binding precedent on when a lender is liable for a broker’s actions.
Establish a legal test for “adequate disclosure.”
Clarify the role of regulation vs. the courts in protecting consumers.

The Court of Appeal already ruled that secret commissions create an unfair relationship and can be considered bribes. The Supreme Court could affirm that. Or refine it.

The Feeling in the Courtroom

By the end of the day, there was no doubt, the Supreme Court was taking this seriously. Not just the legal points, but the real world consequences for consumers, lenders, and future claims.

It wasn’t dramatic. It was deliberate. The Court showed it wanted to get this right. And in doing so, it showed this case is about more than car finance it’s about trust.

Sentinel Legal: Leading the Way

We were there every day. We’ve issued more motor finance litigation than any other firm in the UK. And we’ve already recovered over £500,000 in compensation for mis-sold car finance clients.

We are ready for the next phase. Once the supreme court hands down its decision in Johnson V FirstRand, likely by July 2025, we expect a wave of legal activity, regulatory reaction, and consumer redress.

Frequently Asked Questions FAQ

When is the Supreme Court expected to deliver its judgment on Johnson v FirstRand?

The Supreme Court typically issues decisions within several months of the hearing’s conclusion. Sentinel Legal will promptly update all clients once the judgment is announced.

What impact will this Supreme Court ruling have on car finance customers?

A favourable decision could significantly strengthen consumer rights, ensuring clearer commission disclosures and potentially enabling substantial compensation claims for previously undisclosed broker commissions.

How can I check if I have a claim regarding undisclosed commissions in my car finance agreement?

Simply contact Sentinel Legal for a no-obligation review of your finance agreement. Our team can quickly determine your eligibility and guide you through the claims process.

Does the Supreme Court decision affect every car finance agreement?

The Supreme Court's ruling will likely set a broad legal precedent affecting numerous car finance agreements across the UK, particularly around the transparency and disclosure of broker commissions.