6 | The boundaries of bribery – Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd

In Hopcraft & another v Close Brothers Ltd[1], the Supreme Court overturned an earlier decision from the Court of Appeal, holding that motor-finance providers did not owe a fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty to customers and that a lender was not automatically liable for undisclosed commission paid to the motor dealer.

The decision has come as a relief to the multi-billion pound motor finance industry. However, credit arrangements may still be challenged where aspects of the credit relationship are held to be unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Moreover, on 7 October 2025, the FCA published a consultation on a proposed industry-wide motor-finance consumer redress scheme (covering agreements between 2007 and 2024) with rules expected in early 2026.[2]

Beyond the motor finance sector, the judgment is of potentially wider significance to financial intermediaries and advisors. The Supreme Court affirmed that the tort of bribery may be available where a party can establish a fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty.