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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll