header-logo header-logo

27 September 2018 / Bethan Walsh
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Features , Charities
printer mail-detail

A higher duty of care?

Bethan Walsh examines the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation ruling & its implications for charitable companies

  • Does a member of a charitable company have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of that charity?

On 6 July 2018, the much-anticipated decision of the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s decision that a member of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) (CIFF), a charitable company limited by guarantee, had fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the charity, a duty that is also imposed on members of a charitable incorporated organisation (CIO). The case before the Court of Appeal was Lehtimäki v Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) and others [2018] EWCA Civ 1605, [2018] All ER (D) 52 (Aug).

The Court of Appeal was asked to rule on two key areas: first, whether or not a member of a charitable company has a duty to act in the best interests of that charity; and second, whether such a member could be required to act under the direction of the court. This article focuses on the former area, being the one likely

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll