header-logo header-logo

30 July 2020
Categories: Legal News , Charities
printer mail-detail

Philanthropist couple’s charity battle resolved in landmark case

The Supreme Court has clarified the duties of charity members, in a landmark case concerning a wealthy philanthropic couple whose marriage breakdown caused management difficulties for their charity

The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK), which has more than $4bn assets, helps children in developing countries. It was set up by Sir Christopher Hohn and Jamie Cooper. When the couple broke up, they agreed Cooper would resign as a member and trustee in return for a $360m grant from the charity to a charity founded by Cooper, Big Win Philanthropy. However, the plan was scuppered when one of the three members, Dr Marko Lehtimäki, refused to vote in favour of it. The other two members, Hohn and Cooper, had to recuse themselves from the vote.

The dispute went to trial―the central issue being whether the court could direct members of a charity on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty. Ruling in Lehtimäki & Ors v Cooper [2020] UKSC 33, the Supreme Court held that it could.

Bates Wells partner Leticia Jennings, who acted for Cooper, said: ‘This is the most important charity law case in many years.

‘It has clarified many issues relating to members of charitable companies and their duties, as well as resolving frictions found in company law when it comes to charitable companies. This was the right decision in law and the right decision for charity.

‘The conclusion of this case results in a total of $440m available for Big Win Philanthropy’s important work.’

Bates Wells’ Head of Charity and Social Enterprise, Philip Kirkpatrick said: ‘The issue here is actually surprisingly simple.

‘The Supreme Court has confirmed that the courts can control the members of charitable companies just as it can control their trustees. Charitable companies are different from other companies and their members do not have a special status standing outside the charity but are part of its administrative machinery.’

Categories: Legal News , Charities
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll