Blog written by Neil Stockdale, Partner, and Sophie-May Lewis, Solicitor, in our Financial Mis-Selling team.
The High Court has granted Leicester Indoor Bowls and Social Club Limited permission to rely on amended grounds of appeal in its business energy commission claim against Drax Energy Solutions Limited, recognising that recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions have fundamentally altered the legal landscape relating to undisclosed energy broker commission claims. The appeal will now proceed to a rolled-up hearing before a High Court Judge.
In an order dated 12 May 2026, HHJ Emma Kelly granted permission for the Club to rely on amended grounds of appeal and a replacement skeleton argument. The Court accepted that recent developments in the law justified reconsideration of the issues raised in the appeal. The matter will now proceed to a rolled-up hearing before a High Court Judge.
The claim arises from a business energy contract entered into by Leicester Indoor Bowls and Social Club through energy broker The Energy Checking Company Limited (ECC). The Club alleges that Drax paid commission to ECC which was built into the electricity rates charged to the Club without adequate disclosure, creating what is commonly described as a hidden or undisclosed energy broker commission arrangement.
The commission arrangement was substantial. The broker received commission at a rate of 3.5 pence per unit of electricity supplied, which the trial judge found represented approximately 37% of the daytime electricity rate and 45.8% of the night-time rate charged to the Club. The Club contends that £20,830.13 in commission was embedded within the energy prices paid under the contract, whilst the trial judge concluded that the amount contractually due from Drax to the broker was £18,414.46. The difference between those figures now forms part of the appeal.
At trial, HHJ Hedley accepted that ECC acted as the Club’s agent and owed fiduciary duties to it. The Court found that the Club had placed trust and confidence in ECC to negotiate the best available energy deal and held that a fiduciary relationship existed between them.
However, despite finding that the broker owed fiduciary duties, the Court ultimately dismissed the claim. HHJ Hedley concluded that the Club had given informed consent to the commission arrangement and held that it was not necessary for ECC to disclose the amount of commission it would receive.
Following the judgment, Hugh James questioned the reasoning adopted by the Court, particularly in relation to informed consent and the treatment of undisclosed commission arrangements in the business energy market. Neil Stockdale previously examined the decision in the article Judge warns small businesses to ‘be on their guard’ in energy broker commission case.
The appeal has since taken on much wider significance for businesses pursuing energy commission claims following a series of appellate decisions addressing commission arrangements, including Expert Tooling and Automation Limited v Engie Power Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 292; [2026] 1 All ER 825 and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited [2025] UKSC 33; [2025] 3 WLR 423.
The Club argues that those decisions fundamentally alter the legal framework governing undisclosed commission claims and support a restitutionary claim for the commission element embedded within the energy prices paid by business customers.
In granting the application, HHJ Kelly expressly held that it would assist both the parties and the Court for the appeal to address the appellant’s position in light of Expert Tooling and Hopcraft.
Sophie-May Lewis, Solicitor at Hugh James, said:
“This is an important procedural decision which ensures that the appeal can be considered in light of the most recent appellate guidance on undisclosed commission arrangements. The law in this area has developed significantly since the original appeal was lodged, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hopcraft and the developments arising from Expert Tooling. We welcome the Court’s decision and look forward to advancing the appeal at the substantive hearing.”
Neil Stockdale, Partner at Hugh James and head of the firm’s business energy claims team, said:
“The courts are increasingly focusing on transparency, informed consent and conflicts of interest in commission-based arrangements. Many businesses entered energy contracts believing that brokers were acting solely in their interests, without understanding the extent to which commission structures may have influenced pricing.
We hope that energy suppliers and brokers facing these claims will now take the opportunity to review their positions carefully and engage constructively with affected businesses. Where liability is clear, defendants should do the right thing and seek to resolve claims without the need for further costly and protracted litigation.”
The appeal and cross-appeal are expected to be heard over two days before a High Court Judge at the first available date after 16 June 2026.
What does this mean for businesses?
Many businesses entered energy contracts through brokers without fully understanding how commission arrangements operated or the extent to which commission payments were incorporated into the prices they paid for electricity and gas.
Where commission was embedded within energy prices but not properly disclosed, businesses may have potential claims against energy suppliers, energy brokers or other parties involved in the transaction. Recent decisions in Expert Tooling and Hopcraft have increased judicial scrutiny of undisclosed energy broker commission arrangements, informed consent, conflicts of interest and fiduciary duties.
Businesses concerned that hidden or undisclosed energy broker commission may have been included within their energy contracts should consider seeking legal advice regarding their position. As the law in this area continues to develop, the outcome of the Leicester Indoor Bowls appeal may provide further guidance on the rights and remedies available to affected businesses.
