Highly impressive

Complete vindication for Kids Company, and an embarrassing verdict for The Insolvency Service, with judgement of Mrs Justice Falk saying that Camilla Batmanghelidjh and the Trustees should not be debarred from holding directorships, after the charity collapsed back in 2015.   

It came this afternoon after what must be one of the longest civil hearings in the pandemic. The Trustees were delighted....

“As the former trustees of Kids Company, we welcome Mrs Justice Falk’s judgment in the High Court clearing us of the charge by the Official Receiver that, in our management of Kids Company, we were unfit to be company directors, concluding that she was ‘wholly satisfied’ that the disqualification was unproven and unwarranted. 

“Mrs Justice Falk said that the purpose of her jurisdiction is to protect the public and went on to say: ‘The public need no protection from these Trustees. On the contrary, this is a group of highly-impressive and dedicated individuals who selflessly gave enormous amounts of their time to what was clearly a highly challenging trusteeship. I have a great deal of respect for the care and commitment they showed and the fact that they did not take the much easier path of not getting involved in the first place or walking away when things got difficult.’

Mrs Justice Falk was also complimentary about Ms Batmanghelidjh.... 

'I would also point out the enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years and what she managed to achieve in building a charity which, until 2014, was widely regarded as a highly successful one doing what senior members of the government rightly described as incredible
work. It would be unfortunate if the events the focus of this decision were allowed to eclipse those achievements.'

And very much less impressed with the Official Receiver's team... 

'I was struck by the lack of experience that the Official Receiver had had in relation to charities, in particular the failure to give full recognition to the fact that it is common for charities to be heavily dependent on donations, and the apparent difficulties that both Mr Hannon and Mr Tatham had with the concept of wholly non-executive boards of directors. I think this affected their approach and, for

example, contributed to some inappropriate assumptions being made as to what should have been done by the Trustees. Although Mr Hannon had obviously attempted to gain some familiarity by speaking to the Charity Commission and going on a training course, this was not able to make up for the lack of experience.' 

I'll try to find out what Mrs Justice Falk has ruled on costs, which will be massive.