Barclays Judicial Review Hearing Pushed Back to September
Appeal hearing involving Barclays has been delayed until after the Supreme Court’s decision.
July brought a significant development in the legal arena concerning the Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) scandal, a matter of keen interest to millions of British motorists awaiting the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Barclays’ challenge against a Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decision on its auto-finance commission arrangements has been deferred until September. The delay follows guidance from Lord Justice Males, who emphasised that proceeding before the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark motor-finance case would be premature and risk being “on the wrong legal basis,” potentially giving rise to further appeals.
Originally slated for a July sitting, the appeal has been rescheduled to the court’s autumn term, opening the possibility of a different panel of judges reviewing the matter.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming judgment is expected to establish whether car dealers owed a fiduciary duty to customers when arranging loans, an issue that could determine the fairness of commission arrangements and trigger extensive redress schemes.
Why Barclays Took the FOS to Court
Barclays is currently appealing a 2018 Financial Ombudsman Service decision relating to a car finance agreement through its subsidiary, Clydesdale Financial Services. The FOS found that the bank had unfairly allowed a dealer, Arnold Clark, to charge a customer – Ms Lewis – a higher interest rate than Barclays itself would have offered directly.
In November 2018, Ms Lewis bought a used Audi from Arnold Clark and financed it with a £13,333 loan at 4.67%, although Barclays would have provided a rate of 2.68% directly. This arrangement generated £1,327 in undisclosed discretionary commission for the dealer.
The parties remain divided over whether Barclays’ appeal overlaps with the upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
The FCA maintains the issues are distinct, pointing out that the Supreme Court is focused on matters such as the tort of bribery, Consumer Credit Act provisions, and fiduciary duties.
Barclays, on the other hand, argues there is a clear connection, particularly given the commercial nature of broker-dealer relationships in car finance agreements.
What Happens Next
A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected by mid-summer 2025. Its conclusions on fiduciary duties and commission disclosure will determine whether the bank’s appeal will proceed as planned. If the judgment confirms the existing legal interpretations, Barclays may be left with little ground to challenge the FOS decision further.
In parallel, the Court of Appeal is set to revisit the case in September 2025, having postponed the initial hearing to await clarity from the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Financial Conduct Authority is conducting its own review into wider redress obligations across the car finance industry. The FCA’s findings are anticipated within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s ruling and could shape the compensation landscape for lenders and consumers alike.
For now, it’s a matter of waiting. The Supreme Court is expected to give its answer within weeks, and with it, the direction the entire case (and perhaps the industry) will take.
