The short version. On 1 August 2025 the Supreme Court ([2025] UKSC 33) narrowed the very consumer-friendly Court of Appeal decision from October 2024. It rejected the arguments that hidden commission was automatically "bribery" or a breach of a dealer's fiduciary duty. But it kept one important route: a car finance deal can still be an "unfair relationship" under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 where commission and its terms were effectively hidden.
*The example that succeeded — Johnson. The Court found Mr Johnson's deal unfair because: the commission was 55% of the total charge for credit; there was an undisclosed commercial tie giving the lender first refusal; and the paperwork misleadingly suggested the dealer picked from a panel of lenders in his interest. Remedy: repay the commission, plus interest.*
Why it matters to you. The ruling is why the FCA built a redress scheme rather than leaving everyone to the courts: it confirmed non-disclosure of commission can still be unfair, but on a case-by-case, "was it hidden and unfair?" basis — not an automatic win for every finance agreement.
FAQ.
- Did the Supreme Court say everyone gets money back? No. It rejected the automatic-liability arguments and upheld a narrower "unfair relationship" test, decided on the facts.
- So is my agreement covered? Possibly, via the FCA's redress scheme or a Financial Ombudsman complaint. Check the FCA's eligibility guidance.
Full explainer: Motor finance mis-selling, made simple