header-logo header-logo

30 July 2020
Categories: Legal News , Charities
printer mail-detail

Philanthropist couple’s charity battle resolved in landmark case

The Supreme Court has clarified the duties of charity members, in a landmark case concerning a wealthy philanthropic couple whose marriage breakdown caused management difficulties for their charity

The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK), which has more than $4bn assets, helps children in developing countries. It was set up by Sir Christopher Hohn and Jamie Cooper. When the couple broke up, they agreed Cooper would resign as a member and trustee in return for a $360m grant from the charity to a charity founded by Cooper, Big Win Philanthropy. However, the plan was scuppered when one of the three members, Dr Marko Lehtimäki, refused to vote in favour of it. The other two members, Hohn and Cooper, had to recuse themselves from the vote.

The dispute went to trial―the central issue being whether the court could direct members of a charity on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty. Ruling in Lehtimäki & Ors v Cooper [2020] UKSC 33, the Supreme Court held that it could.

Bates Wells partner Leticia Jennings, who acted for Cooper, said: ‘This is the most important charity law case in many years.

‘It has clarified many issues relating to members of charitable companies and their duties, as well as resolving frictions found in company law when it comes to charitable companies. This was the right decision in law and the right decision for charity.

‘The conclusion of this case results in a total of $440m available for Big Win Philanthropy’s important work.’

Bates Wells’ Head of Charity and Social Enterprise, Philip Kirkpatrick said: ‘The issue here is actually surprisingly simple.

‘The Supreme Court has confirmed that the courts can control the members of charitable companies just as it can control their trustees. Charitable companies are different from other companies and their members do not have a special status standing outside the charity but are part of its administrative machinery.’

Categories: Legal News , Charities
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll