Retrospective Injustice: Why Rachel Reeves Must Not Undermine the Supreme Court

Monday July 28, 2025

News Image

I read yesterday with absolute consternation that the wholly incompetent Chancellor is contemplating “retrospective” legislation to overrule or interfere with the expected up and coming Supreme Court decision on undisclosed commissions in the motor finance industry. This move raises concerns about a potential Supreme Court retrospective injustice.

Rachel Reeves had already tried to interfere during the Supreme Court Hearing in April citing the likelihood of “considerable economic harm” if the judgement was in favour of the consumer. Quite rightly the Court threw out the Government’s attempted interference in due process, preventing a potential Supreme Court retrospective injustice.

Once again the so-called “Labour party for the people” are favoring the large wealthy institutions over the wronged consumer. But there is much more to this potential Supreme Court retrospective injustice.

To interfere in a legal decision in a case that has gone all the way to the highest court in the land, would be unconstitutional and fly in the face of the most important principle of our legal system, that being the separation of powers between government and the Judiciary. Such interference could lead to a Supreme Court retrospective injustice.

I say all of this as a former litigation lawyer and also one who has worked in the financial reclaim sector since 2007, but who has no “skin in the game” and whose Firm does not represent any clients in this Sector.

To Rachel Reeves I say, billions of pounds of compensation rightfully paid to consumers who have been wronged, will on the contrary bolster the economy and not “cause the economy harm”.

Gary Landa

Co-founder and Lawyer