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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll