Lenders Win Reprieve in UK Motor Finance Case From Top Court
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned most of a lower court ruling that last year had sent shares in affected banks spiralling. The decision also throws into uncertainty a compensation program that analysts previously estimated would cost the banks tens of billions of pounds.
The Financial Conduct Authority said it would confirm before markets open on Monday whether it would go ahead with its plans. 'We will be working through the weekend to analyze the judgment and determine our next steps,' an FCA spokesperson said in a statement. 'If we do decide to propose a redress scheme, we'll consult widely.'
The ruling was issued after the London stock markets had closed to prevent any market disruption, Judge Robert Reed said. Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Close Brothers Group Plc American depositary receipts were up more than 4% at 6:30 p.m. in London.
The court said car dealers can act in their commercial interests, and dismissed most of the arguments that dealers selling loans for the banks must obtain consumers' informed consent to charge commission.
The dealer 'was not a fiduciary: that is to say, a person entirely committed to acting in another person's interest without any interest of his own,' Judge Reed said. 'On the contrary, the car dealer was at all times pursuing its own commercial interests in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms.'
The judges upheld one of the Court of Appeal's rulings, saying a case brought by one of the claimants — Marcus Johnson — stood out because of several factors including the high level of commission the consumer was charged and the fact that the customer was expected to read a lengthy legal contract to understand the size of that fee. He also wasn't told that his lender, FirstRand Ltd., had the right to refuse the loan in the first place.
'I am delighted for him,' said Kevin Durkin, a lawyer for Johnson. 'It's a really good win for the consumer because they have got an angle and a route into court now.'
Peter Rothwell, head of banking at KPMG, said affected banks will still need to continue preparations to compensate eligible customers. 'But they can do so with greater confidence that it will focus on discretionary commission arrangements and cases where there is a breach of the Consumer Credit Act as a result of an unfair relationship, rather than all historic commissions.'
Professional services firm BDO said the judgment could still result in redress of between £5 billion and £13 billion, or more, with clarity needed from the FCA about its next steps. Before Friday's ruling, analysts had estimated that the total bill for compensation could top £30 billion.
Close Brothers and FirstRand appealed the case to the top court after previous judges said that consumers taking out car loans without giving informed consent about commission were treated unfairly.
In a company statement on Saturday, Close Brothers welcomed the ruling on motor finance commissions, calling it a source of legal clarity. There remains uncertainty over potential costs until the FCA confirms whether it plans to consult on a redress scheme, the company added. FirstRand did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Finance and Leasing Association, an industry body, said the ruling 'properly reflects the role and responsibilities of dealers, lenders and customers, and it has restored certainty and clarity to the largest point-of-sale consumer credit market in the UK.'
'The FCA now has the legal clarity to continue its work to establish if a redress scheme is needed, and of course the thousands of unfounded complaints submitted to lenders by claimant law firms and CMCs can now be removed from the system,' Stephen Haddrill, director general of the FLA, said in a statement.
What Bloomberg Intelligence Says:
Lloyds and UK peers' £1.7 billion in provisions for covering car-loan risks may be sufficient after the Supreme Court significantly narrowed lenders' legal exposure by reining in a lower court's findings. The ruling is a relief for the sector and allows lenders to effectively avoid a scandal that could cost as much as £30 billion.
— Tomasz Noetzel, senior analyst, banks
With assistance from Ronan Martin, Adelaide Changole and Christian Dass.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US imports from Russia jumped 23% in Jan-May—fueled by uranium, palladium
Even as Washington pressures New Delhi over Russian oil imports, American imports from Russia are quietly rising – growing 23 per cent year-on-year to $2.1 billion between January and May this year. The surge was led by sharp increases in imports of palladium (37 per cent), uranium (28 per cent), and fertilisers (21 per cent). In 2024, two years after the Ukraine war began, US merchandise imports from Russia fell to $3 billion in customs value – 90 per cent lower than in 2021, the year before the conflict. Still, key Russian goods continued to flow into the US in 2024, including fertilisers ($1.1 billion), palladium ($878 million), uranium ($624 million), and aircraft engine parts ($75 million), according to US International Trade Commission (USITC) data. Trade between Washington and Moscow has come under the spotlight after India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) called the 'targeting of India' over Russian oil imports by the US and the EU 'unjustified and unreasonable' in a statement on Monday. 'Where the United States is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals,' the MEA said. The statement came hours after US President Donald Trump threatened to 'substantially' raise tariffs on Indian exports for 'buying massive amounts of Russian oil', in addition to the 25 per cent 'Liberation Day' tariff set to kick in from August 7. Fertilisers, palladium now lead US imports from Russia In 2021, the US imported goods worth around $30 billion from Russia. This halved to $14 billion in 2022, following the war in Ukraine that began in February that year. Imports then fell to $4.6 billion in 2023, before settling at $3 billion in 2024. The main import in 2021 was crude oil, valued at over $17 billion, but that has since become negligible. By 2024, imports of fish and crustaceans, nickel, and lead had ceased entirely. Around 90 per cent of US imports from Russia in 2024 comprised fertilisers (including urea and potassium chloride), palladium, and uranium. Compared to 2021, fertiliser imports in 2024 were down 8 per cent, palladium 45 per cent, and uranium just 3 per cent. Palladium is a precious metal widely used in catalytic converters in internal combustion engines (ICE) and hybrid vehicles to reduce emissions, but it has limited use in fully electric vehicles (EVs). Uranium imports rise despite curbs At $806 million, US fertiliser imports from Russia between January and May 2025 were up 21 per cent y-o-y and 60 per cent higher than the $503 million imported in the same period of 2021. Similarly, uranium imports rose 28 per cent y-o-y to $596 million and surged 147 per cent compared to $241 million in January-May 2021, before the war began. Weeks after the war began, Washington banned imports of Russian crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal, and restricted US investments in most Russian energy firms. In 2024, it also barred imports of Russian enriched uranium – a key revenue source for Moscow. However, some US companies can apply for waivers until 2028, which partly explains the recent surge in imports. MEA defends oil imports, calls EU-Russia trade 'revealing' In its statement, the MEA said India began importing oil from Russia 'because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict'. 'The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets' stability,' the ministry said. It asserted that India's Russian oil imports are a 'necessity compelled by global market situation'. 'However, it is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion,' the statement said. With Russia, the EU's bilateral trade in 2024 stood at 67.5 billion euros in goods and 17.2 billion euros in services, it added. 'This is significantly more than India's total trade with Russia that year or subsequently. European imports of LNG in 2024, in fact, reached a record 16.5 mn tonnes, surpassing the last record of 15.21 mn tonnes in 2022. Europe-Russia trade includes not just energy, but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel and machinery and transport equipment,' the statement said.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
China's 996 workweek is knocking on America's door: Is Silicon Valley falling for the 70-hour grind?
(Representative image) There was a time when Silicon Valley served a dream on a platter, not just of a technology to revolutionise the world, but of lives built on flexibility, creativity, and a certain renegade freedom. Today, in the fluorescent-lit offices of AI startups from Palo Alto to SoMa, the dream is morphed and has become a subject of mockery. 12 hour shifts and six days a week are becoming the new norm of the American job market. The 21st century opened with the narratives of work-life balance, with beanbags, open offices, and kombucha on tap, it appears the next chapter may be authored in the image of a far more punishing model: China's 996 work culture, 9 AM to 9 PM, six days a week. Once vilified and outlawed in the country of origin, 996 is now knocking on America's doors, looking for a new traction in the heart of its tech frontier. The question isn't whether this trend exists. It does. The question is: What does its rise say about the future of ambition in America? Will Silicon Valley keep championing the employees who trade their sleep and sanity for the sake of so-called progress? A peek into the new reality At Rilla, a San Francisco-based AI startup, there's no pretence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You) Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Search Now Undo The job listing doesn't mince words: 'Do not apply unless you're excited about working approximately 70 hours a week.' It's not just a warning, it's a filter. Meals are provided, Saturdays included. The message is etched in black and white: This is the place where work should be your optimum priority, and is for the ones who breathe hustle. And this story does not end with a single company, but is slowly redefining the very fabric of American work culture, where work is no longer a part of life, but a life itself. 996 isn't creeping , it's charging in What was once the whispered domain of overworked founders is now becoming institutionalised. Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently described 60-hour weeks as the 'sweet spot' for his Gemini AI team. Elon Musk offered a more ruthless ultimatum at X: commit to 'extremely hardcore' work hours or take severance and go. Other startups are less subtle. San Francisco-based Fella & Delilah recently introduced a two-tier system, a 25% salary bump and double the equity for those opting into 996. Just under 10% of staff signed on. Meanwhile, recruiters are adjusting to the new expectations. Adrian Kinnersley, a long-time tech headhunter, reports a surge in companies asking for 996 commitments upfront. He's already registered the domain not as a gimmick, but in anticipation of a job market that no longer hides its demands behind euphemisms like "fast-paced" or "growth-minded." Why now? Why again? The answer to why there is a resurgence of extreme work culture, one has to look beyond office walls, to the geopolitical battle being waged in code and silicon. China's DeepSeek AI recently stunned Western researchers with models rivalling, even threatening, the dominance of OpenAI and Google DeepMind. Silicon Valley, long accustomed to leading from the front, suddenly feels the heat at its back. The reflex is primal: work harder. Work longer. Outbuild. Enter the 996 revival. It's no longer just about building great products; it's about defending America's place in a global AI arms race. British venture capitalist Harry Stebbings, never known for understatement, suggested that even 996 might now be passé. 'China's on 007,' he quipped. 'Midnight to midnight, seven days a week.' For Stebbings, working five days a week builds $100 million companies. Seven days? That's the $10 billion game. It's a mindset that both inspires and alarms, depending on where you stand. The fine print: Dreams vs. labour law The glorification of relentless toil does not come without repercussions. Labour law experts forewarn that numerous companies are operating far outside compliance, especially in California, which boasts some of the strictest protections for overtime, rest, and worker safety. But the law, as always, lags behind the culture. And culture is shifting fast. The truth is, there is less appetite, at least in the Valley, to run the ethos. Investors don't reward moderation. Founders don't get applause for leaving early. And in a climate where Gen Z founders equate sleep with mediocrity, the gravitational pull of extreme work is hard to resist. A warning from the East It's worth remembering: China tried this. It scaled the heights of innovation on the backs of millions of overworked engineers, only to be forced into a reckoning. Burnout, protests, suicides, and eventually, government intervention. In 2021, China made 996 illegal. The social cost had become too high. And now, in a twist almost too ironic to script, the United States is embracing the very culture China deemed untenable. The bigger question: What are we building , and at what cost? Work, at its best, is a vehicle for meaning, progress, and transformation. But when the engine is pushed too hard, too often, even the best machines break down. There is a huge fascination and allure to the narrative that genius only emerges through grind. Silicon Valley has long mythologised its titans, the Jobses, the Musks, the Zuckerbergs, as monks of obsession. But it is one thing to admire their intensity. It is another thing to institutionalise it. What happens when a whole generation mistakes exhaustion for excellence? When working through weekends isn't the exception but the expectation? The race for AI dominance is real. But the deeper race, the one that will shape our culture, our health, our future, is how we define the value of a human hour. If America is to lead the world in innovation, it must ask itself: Is it enough to work harder than China, or must we work smarter too? Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back
NEW YORK: A public document filed by a company that just hired President Donald Trump's two oldest sons as advisers included a sentence early Monday that said it hoped to benefit from grants and other incentives from the federal government, which their father happens to lead. But when The Associated Press asked the Trump family business about the apparent conflict of interest, the document was revised and the line taken out. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are getting 'founder shares' worth millions of dollars in New America Acquisition 1 Corp., a company with no operating business that hopes to fill that hole by purchasing an American company that can play 'a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,' according to the filing. The president has geared his trade policy toward boosting manufacturing in the U.S. The original version of the securities filing said the target company should be 'well positioned' to tap federal or state government incentives. That reference was taken out of the revised version. The Trump Organization didn't reply to a question about whether New America still planned to benefit from government programs or why the line was cut. But the outside law firm Paul Hastings that helped prepare the document sent an email to AP saying it was 'mistake' made by 'scriveners,' an old term for transcribers of legal papers. Kathleen Clark, an expert in government ethics, said any excuses are too late because the Trumps had already tipped their hand. 'They just deleted the language. They haven't committed not to do what they said earlier today they were planning to do," said the Washington University law professor and Trump critic. "It's an attempt to exploit public office for private profit.'
