header-logo header-logo

A higher duty of care?

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll