Marcus Gervase Johnson v Firstrand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a Motonovo Finance

Marcus Gervase Johnson v Firstrand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a Motonovo Finance

Dealers acted as credit brokers owing both disinterested and fiduciary duties; commission payments were secret or insufficiently disclosed, rendering lenders liable as primary wrongdoers (Hopcraft, Wrench) or accessories (Johnson). Relationship in Johnson was unfair under Consumer Credit Act 1974 due to non-disclosure and excessive commission.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Marcus Gervase Johnson; Respondent/defendant: Firstrand Bank Limited (London Branch) T/A MotoNovo Finance; Appellant/claimant: Andrew Wrench; Appellant/claimant: Amy Louise Hopcraft; Appellant/claimant: Carl Hopcraft; Respondent/defendant: Close Brothers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Secret Commission, Fiduciary Duty, Accessory Liability, Unfair Relationship, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Disinterested Duty, Bribery, Commission Disclosure
Contract Consumer Protection Agency Equity Secret Commission Fiduciary Duty Accessory Liability Unfair Relationship +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 24
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcus Gervase Johnson

Appellant/claimant

Firstrand Bank Limited (London Branch) T/A MotoNovo Finance

Respondent/defendant

Andrew Wrench

Appellant/claimant

Amy Louise Hopcraft

Appellant/claimant

Carl Hopcraft

Appellant/claimant

Close Brothers Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commission paid to credit brokers was secret or partially disclosed
  2. 2 Whether brokers owed a disinterested or fiduciary duty to claimants
  3. 3 Whether lenders are liable as primary wrongdoers or accessories

Ratio Decidendi

Dealers acted as credit brokers owing both disinterested and fiduciary duties; commission payments were secret or insufficiently disclosed, rendering lenders liable as primary wrongdoers (Hopcraft, Wrench) or accessories (Johnson). Relationship in Johnson was unfair under Consumer Credit Act 1974 due to non-disclosure and excessive commission.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Commission to be repaid to claimants with interest
  • No rescission ordered due to passage of time and circumstances