The duties of a fiduciary have been defined by the courts: “A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter, in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; and he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict.”
Academy Trusts are established as charitable companies limited by guarantee without a share capital. As companies, academy trusts have a two-tier governance structure of members and directors/trustees. The directors of the academy trust are both company law directors and charity law trustees and as such owe fiduciary duties to an academy trust. The duties owed by members of a company limited by guarantee are not as clear cut and there has been some debate as to whether members also owe a fiduciary duty to such a company. Some light has been shed on this area in the recent case of The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v H.M. Attorney General and Others .
As part of this case the courts considered whether to direct a member of The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (“CIFF”) to vote in favour of a substantial grant to another charitable company, the court held that the member in question had an obligation to exercise his vote in the best interests of CIFF. The members of CIFF (of which there were only 3) did not stand outside of the charity: they were part of the administration of the charity and could not lay claim to any private interest.
The court noted that its judgement was made in line with the regime of the Charities Act 2011: ‘the whole thrust of which is to ensure that the assets of [a charitable company] are used for its exclusively charitable objects and for no other purpose.’ The Act prevents members of a charity from benefitting personally from their membership. It would go against the thrust of the charity law regime if a member of a charitable company could vote in his own interests in a manner detrimental to the objects of the charity.
It is important to note that this judgement was made on the above, specific facts of the case; a case of exceptional character which involved a number of questions of law. Further, whether the members owed a fiduciary duty was not a contested issue in the case and so it may not have received the same degree of scrutiny if the parties had disagreed. Nonetheless, this judgement appears to establish for the first time that the members of a charitable company are not free to exercise their votes in their own interests and so it is a judgement that will be of great significance to anyone who maintains a position as a member of an academy trust.
For further information relating to the points raised in this article, please contact Mark Honeywell or a member of the Education Team.
We are hosting a Seminar in November which will focus on GDPR in the Education Sector.
 Millet LJ. Mothew v. Bristol and West Building Society (1996).
Please note this information is provided by way of example and may not be complete and is certainly not intended to constitute legal advice. You should take bespoke advice for your circumstances.