The Billion-Pound Energy Scandal: What Law Students Need to Know About Expert Tooling v Engie Power
Sometimes the biggest scandals hide in plain sight. Buried in the small print of your energy bill.
If you’re heading into a training contract or pupillage interview in 2026 and you haven’t come across Expert Tooling v Engie Power, you’re missing one of the most commercially significant legal developments in recent years.
This isn’t just another contract law case for your notes. It’s a Supreme Court case that has put the spotlight on how energy brokers make money and raised serious questions about commission, disclosure, and fiduciary duties across the sector.
The case has the potential to expose energy brokers and suppliers to large-scale claims and force a fundamental rethink of commission disclosure practices across the industry. And it all started with a deceptively simple question:
“How much commission are you actually making off me?”
Let me walk you through it.
What Actually Happened? The Case in 60 Seconds
Expert Tooling, a manufacturing business, needed electricity for its operations. Like thousands of other companies, it used an energy broker, Utilitywise Plc, to source a supply contract with a supplier, Engie Power.
Expert Tooling knew Utilitywise would be paid commission by Engie. That much wasn’t controversial. Brokers work on commission. No drama there.
What Expert Tooling didn’t know was:
how much that commission was
that the commission was built into the unit price of electricity
that the amount of commission varied depending on the length of the contract
In practical terms, the broker had a clear financial incentive to push longer contracts, which generated higher commission, without the client understanding how that incentive operated.
When Expert Tooling later discovered the scale and structure of the commission, it brought a claim seeking recovery of that commission, alleging that the broker had breached its fiduciary duty by failing to obtain proper informed consent.
The Legal Shift: Secret vs Half-Secret Commissions
This is where it gets especially interesting for law students.
Historically, courts have drawn a distinction between:
Secret commissions: where the principal has no idea the agent is being paid at all (a clear breach of fiduciary duty); and
So-called “half-secret” commissions: where the principal knows commission exists but doesn’t know how much it is or how it operates.
The law on half-secret commissions has long been murky. Courts were inconsistent, and principals were often told that if they wanted more information, they should have asked the right questions.
In Expert Tooling, the Court of Appeal followed that approach. It emphasised that Expert Tooling was a sophisticated commercial party which knew commission was being paid and could have asked for more detail.
But that approach didn’t survive the journey to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Intervention
Following developments in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd (another case dealing with undisclosed broker commission) the Supreme Court allowed Expert Tooling’s appeal by consent.
Allowing an appeal by consent means the respondents did not oppose the appeal proceeding, rather than forcing the claimant to fight the issues out in open court. While a full substantive Supreme Court judgment is still awaited, the Court’s willingness to allow the appeal is a strong signal that the previous “you should have asked” approach is no longer safe.
In short: the legal landscape has shifted.
What Has Changed?
The direction of travel is now clear.
Generic references to “commission” buried in standard terms are unlikely to be enough where a broker presents itself as acting in the client’s interests.
The real focus is now on:
what the client was actually told during the sales process
whether the client genuinely understood how pricing and commission worked
whether the broker positioned itself as a trusted adviser
If a broker acts like it is working for the client, while structuring its remuneration to maximise its own return based on contract length or pricing, equity may intervene, even if the contract technically mentions commission somewhere in the paperwork.
This is equity stepping in and saying: contracts matter, but they are not a shield for conduct that undermines trust and informed consent.
The Commercial Bombshell: Why This Matters for Business
This doesn’t just affect one manufacturing company.
Large numbers of UK businesses have used energy brokers on similar terms. The case opens the door for those businesses to scrutinise historic contracts and ask whether they truly gave informed consent to commission arrangements.
Crucially, the Supreme Court confirmed that dishonesty is not required. A broker doesn’t need to be acting dishonestly to be liable. If it owes fiduciary duties and fails to obtain informed consent, that alone may be enough.
Energy suppliers are not immune either. Where suppliers knew, or ought to have known, that brokers were not being transparent with their clients, they may also face exposure.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
If you’re interested in commercial law, this case should be on your radar.
In practical terms:
brokers will need proactive, meaningful disclosure processes, not boilerplate clauses
historic claims may emerge within the six-year limitation period for equitable claims
professional indemnity insurers are likely reassessing risk and pricing
This is no longer a theoretical issue. It’s a live commercial risk.
What Law Students Should Focus On
If you want to talk about this case convincingly in an interview, focus on three things.
1. The Tension Between Contract and Equity
This is a textbook example of equity stepping in where strict contract law might otherwise produce an unfair outcome. Signing a contract isn’t the end of the analysis if fiduciary duties and informed consent are in play.
2. The Commercial Context
Energy contracts are major ongoing costs for SMEs. If intermediaries are incentivised to prioritise their own commission over the client’s interests, that undermines trust in the entire brokerage model.
3. The Wider Implications
This isn’t just about energy. The principles apply to financial services, insurance brokers, corporate finance advisers - any intermediary paid by commission while holding itself out as acting for the client.
The 3-Minute Interview Framework
If an interviewer asks, “Have you been following any recent cases?”, this is how you can structure your answer.
Step 1: The One-Line Pitch (10 seconds)
“I’ve been following Expert Tooling v Engie Power, a Supreme Court case about undisclosed broker commissions in energy contracts.”
Step 2: The Core Issue (30 seconds)
“The client knew commission existed but didn’t understand how much it was or that it was built into pricing. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, signalling that generic contractual references aren’t enough where a broker hasn’t properly explained the commission and obtained informed consent.”
Step 3: Why It Matters (60 seconds)
“It has major commercial implications because many businesses used brokers on similar terms. Liability doesn’t require dishonesty - just a breach of fiduciary duty. It may trigger litigation, force brokers to overhaul disclosure practices, and affect suppliers who turned a blind eye. It’s a strong example of equity reshaping commercial practice.”
Final Thoughts
Expert Tooling v Engie Power is a reminder that law doesn’t operate in a vacuum.
It shows how equity can reshape commercial behaviour, how disclosure failures translate into financial risk, and how legal developments ripple across entire industries.
So next time you’re asked what’s been happening in the courts recently, you’ll have a genuinely commercial answer - not just a case name.
And if you want more commercial awareness breakdowns like this, not just what the law says, but why it matters, that’s exactly what we do in the Commercial Awareness Club.
Join here: speedmooting.com/commercial-awareness-club
