Last week NFDA presented robust written and oral evidence to the Supreme Court in the appeal against the decision on motor finance commission in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Limited and Hopcraft v Close Brothers. One week later, the entire automotive industry now awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling in the coming months wherein it faces a decision of weighing consumers against the operational realities of the motor retail industry. The central question at issue is do dealerships owe their customers fiduciary duty when helping to arrange car loans? The National Franchised Dealer Association’s (NFDA) intervention on the second day provided a perspective on the practical realities of vehicle sales and finance brokering. Central to its argument was the rejection of the Court of Appeal’s earlier finding that the sales and finance processes were functionally separate. NFDA robustly rejects the notion that its members have for decades conducted their businesses by accepting bribes and argues that car dealers are a prime example of traders who are understood by the public to act in their own interest when dealing with consumers. Nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self interest in relation to any of the products it sells. Following the 3 day hearing, the automotive industry is anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision expected in July 2025.