Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Upcoming

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  3 April 2025

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

  Lord Reed,

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Hamblen

  (1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2024/0157 Hopcraft and another (Respondents) v Close Brothers Limited (Appellant)

  Legal issue

  UKSC/2024/0158 Johnson (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  3 April 2025

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

  Lord Reed,

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Hamblen

  (1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2024/0157 Hopcraft and another (Respondents) v Close Brothers Limited (Appellant)

  Legal issue

  UKSC/2024/0159 Wrench (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  3 April 2025

  Hopcraft and another (Respondents) v Close Brothers Limited (Appellant)

  Lord Reed,

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Lloyd-Jones,

  Lord Briggs,

  Lord Hamblen

  (1) When acting as credit brokers, do car dealers owe consumers a “disinterested” and/or fiduciary duty to provide information, advice or recommendation? (2) If so, were the payments of commissions by the lenders to the car dealers secret such that the lenders become primary wrongdoers? (3) Can the lenders be liable in the tort of bribery? If so, what is the correct approach to remedies? (4) If there was sufficient disclosure of the commission to negate secrecy, was there insufficient disclosure to procure the consumers’ fully informed consent to the payment such that the lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers’ breach of duty? (5) Can insufficient disclosure also suffice to make the relationship between lender and consumer “unfair” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

  Linked cases

  UKSC/2024/0158 Johnson (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)

  Legal issue

  UKSC/2024/0159 Wrench (Respondent) v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance (Appellant)

  Legal Issue

  ---

• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Judgment

  3 April 2025

  Wallace I Rolle and another (Appellants) v Town Court Management Co (Respondent) (Bahamas)

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Leggatt,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lord Stephens

  (1) Does the Law of Property and Conveyancing (Condominium) Act 1965 (the “1965 Act”) prohibit the delegation of the Respondent’s statutory duties? (2) Do “contributions” under the 1965 Act include management fees charged by a third party carrying out the Respondent’s statutory management functions? (3) Did the trial judge err in refusing to award interest on the damages awarded to the Appellants?

  ---

• UK Supreme Court

  Hearing

  7 April 2025

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant)

  Lord Hodge,

  Lord Hamblen,

  Lord Burrows,

  Lord Richards,

  Lady Simler

  Did the Court of Appeal err: (i) in its conclusions as to the objective and correct interpretation of the legislation applicable to determining whether the Trust was a taxable person for the purposes of Value Added Tax (“VAT”). (ii) in its understanding of the facts that need to be proved in order to determine whether there is a significant distortion of competition under the applicable legislation.

  ---