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

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll