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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll