In the conjoined appeals in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd,1 the Supreme Court (“SC”) considered a widespread practice relating to the payment of commission in the motor finance industry. A dealer offers a car for sale. If the customer wants to obtain the car on credit, the dealer will obtain an offer of finance from a lender on hire-purchase terms. The offer will come from one of a number of lenders on a panel maintained by the dealer. If the offer is acceptable to the customer, the customer enters into a hire-purchase agreement with the lender, and the lender pays the dealer a commission for the introduction of the hire purchase business.2

The question with which the SC was concerned was whether the lenders were liable in the tort of bribery for paying a commission to the dealers in exchange for the introduction of the hire-purchase business from the customer.3 The answer to this principally depended on an examination of two questions: (i) whether a fiduciary relationship was required for the tort of bribery to be engaged; and (ii) if so, whether the dealers owed fiduciary duties to the customers. In summary, the SC held that a fiduciary relationship was necessary for the