header-logo header-logo

15 July 2026
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’.

Categories: Legal News , Company , Governance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Osbornes Law—Alex McMahon, Andrew Middlehurst & Harriet McMorrin

Osbornes Law—Alex McMahon, Andrew Middlehurst & Harriet McMorrin

Homegrown hat-trick: Osbornes Law promotes three former trainees to partner

mfg Solicitors—Sarah Bradford

mfg Solicitors—Sarah Bradford

Partner arrival boosts law firm’s growing real estate team

Freeths—David Smith

Freeths—David Smith

Freeths secures major tax hire with appointment of David Smith

NEWS
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
Digital fraud is ‘baffling policymakers, investigators, prosecutors and enforcers’, leaving ‘a massive justice gap’, the author of a government-commissioned independent review has warned
Richard Lloyd’s independent review of the Legal Services Board (LSB) has delivered a devastating verdict, accusing the super-regulator of having ‘lost its way in recent years’
The House of Commons has passed the Hillsborough Law, in a historic achievement for campaigners, survivors and families of those who died in the 1989 stadium collapse
Judicial statistics show a steady rise in the number of female judges and Asian and mixed ethnicity judges in the past ten years—however, progress in terms of representation has stalled for both Black lawyers and for solicitors
back-to-top-scroll