Eight motor finance companies appealed over how more than 5,000 car buyers' commission claims should be managed, in a Court of Appeal judgment given on 30 June 2026.
Key facts
- Who: Car buyers bringing claims over undisclosed discretionary commission arrangements, and the motor finance companies they sue
- From: 30 June 2026
- Source: Black Horse Limited v Stuart Angel & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 831
Background
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment in [2026] EWCA Civ 831 on 30 June 2026. Lord Justice Coulson gave the judgment, and the hearing took place on 22 and 23 April 2026. It is a second appeal, from the High Court (King's Bench Division, Mr Justice Ritchie, [2025] EWHC 490 (KB)), which had itself dealt with an appeal from a circuit judge in Birmingham.
The claimants number more than 5,000 people who bought cars over the last 14 years. The defendants are eight motor finance companies that lent them the money, including Black Horse Limited, Close Brothers Limited, Aldermore Bank PLC and Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited. Vauxhall Finance PLC and Stellantis Financial Services UK Limited are effectively the same company.
The claimants say they unknowingly paid commission to car dealers. They allege the lenders did not properly disclose discretionary commission arrangements, under which dealers could set the interest rate and were paid commission in line with it. The claims are brought under section 140B(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, on the basis that the relationship between borrower and lender was unfair. They seek repayment of money paid under the credit agreements.
The claims were issued in eight claim forms on 10 November 2022. Assuming each claim is worth about £1,000, Black Horse faces potential liability of £1,852,000, while Aldermore faces claims totalling £29,000.
The case management dispute
The claimants relied on a single, generic particulars of claim that pleaded no individual facts. They wanted common issues decided first, possibly through a sampling exercise. The defendants argued that unfairness depends on the facts of each case and sought to separate the claims.
In June 2023 the circuit judge, HHJ Worster, held that the convenience test under CPR 7.3 was not met. He separated the claims and rejected formal sampling, saying the claimants had not put forward a workable sampling regime early enough.
The Court of Appeal then decided Morris, in which the Master of the Rolls held that the earlier Abbott tests were too restrictive and that convenience depends on the facts of each case. The High Court judge held that Morris meant the circuit judge's approach could not stand, and he re-exercised the discretion himself.
Lord Justice Coulson observed that the High Court judge had blurred two different things: deciding common issues on assumed facts, and trying lead cases through to a conclusion so that results can be applied across a wider group.
What this means for motor finance claimants
The dispute concerns how large groups of claims proceed through the courts, not whether any individual claim succeeds. The way claims are grouped, and whether common issues or lead cases are used, affects how such claims are managed.
Sources
- Black Horse Limited v Stuart Angel & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 831, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 30 June 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/831