header-logo header-logo

15 July 2026
Issue: 8170 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Governance
printer mail-detail

Good faith test is objective, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of a director’s duty, in a case where a chairman’s good intentions went awry due to the pandemic

Saxon Woods Investments Ltd and others v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 concerned the director’s Companies Act 2006, s 172 duties to act in good faith to promote the company’s success.

Francesco Costa, chair of Spring Media, was asked by the board to prepare the company for a sale by the end of 2019. However, he genuinely believed a later sale would deliver a higher price. Instead of putting this view to the board, he acted covertly, misleading the board and excluding other directors in order to delay the sale past 2019. Unfortunately, this meant the COVID-19 pandemic shattered any chance of a profitable exit.

Saxon Woods, a minority shareholder, presented a petition against Costa for relief from unfair prejudice.

The High Court held Saxon suffered unfair prejudice but Costa did not breach his s 172 fiduciary duty. Overturning this, the Court of Appeal held the breach did exist on the basis Costa’s deception was dishonest, applying the objective test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67. It ordered Costa to buy out Saxon Woods’ shares at their 31 December 2019 value.

Unanimously dismissing Costa’s appeal this week, the Supreme Court rejected the argument ‘good faith’ is subjective, governing the director’s thinking and views rather than their conduct.

Lord Briggs, giving the main judgment, said: ‘Far from promoting corporate success in the modern world, it would be a recipe for chaos and paralysis in corporate governance, and destructive of the collegiality of the board of directors as a whole which all stakeholders in limited companies are entitled to expect.’

Instead, ‘good faith’ is objective, ‘applied to the director’s conduct, and not limited to his thought processes about company strategy’.

Saxon Woods’ solicitors Stephenson Harwood said that, while the Court of Appeal relied on Ivey dishonesty, the Supreme Court took ‘a broader view’. Consequently, directors must use delegated powers ‘solely for the purposes and strategies the board has approved’ and ‘must cooperate with the board’.

Issue: 8170 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Governance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal expands Midlands residential development team

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn adds employee benefits and executive compensation practice in London with partner Richard Surtees

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron

Laytons ETL appoints new partner and head of intellectual property disputes

NEWS
A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land
Employers cannot rely on wellbeing services alone to defend workplace stress claims after a High Court decision awarding almost £1m to an overworked employee
Andy Burnham's brand of 'Manchesterism' could offer fresh thinking on legal aid and access to justice if it reaches Westminster, according to Roger Smith, NLJ columnist and former director of JUSTICE
The constitutional fallout from a change of prime minister, rather than the politics, is under scrutiny as questions arise over the limits of executive authority in a leadership transition
The legal profession is undergoing a fundamental shift from selling services to creating technology-enabled products, according to Professor Luke Mason, Head of School of Law at Regent's University London
back-to-top-scroll