The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation ("CIFF") is a charitable company with more than $4bn in assets helping children in developing countries. It was founded by Sir Christopher Hohn and Ms Jamie Cooper in 2002, but it became difficult to manage when their marriage broke down. These proceedings stem from the steps they took to resolve those difficulties. Specifically, they agreed that in exchange for a grant of $360 million to Big Win Philanthropy, a charity founded by Ms Cooper, she would resign as a member and trustee of CIFF.
CIFF’s members had to approve this grant. CIFF has only three members, two of whom, namely Sir Christopher and Ms Cooper had to recuse themselves from the vote. Thus, only Dr Marko Lehtimaki can vote on the proposal.
The Chancellor of the High Court held that the grant would be in CIFF’s best interests and ordered Dr Lehtimaki to vote for the resolution approving the grant.
Dr Lehtimaki appealed against that order, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal holding that, in the absence of a breach of fiduciary duty, the court could not direct Dr Lehtimaki on how he should exercise his powers.

This case is about how the authorities should approach the activities of "paedophile hunters". These are self-appointed groups of vigilantes who impersonate children in order to expose people who they consider to be sexual predators. Some of these groups have attracted substantial online followings and debate in mainstream media.
In 2018 Mr Sutherland matched on a dating app with somebody who, when he communicated with them, claimed to be a 13-year old child. He sent sexual messages and images to that person, and they eventually arranged to meet at Partick station. In fact, he was speaking to an adult member of a "paedophile hunter" group. Members of that group confronted Mr Sutherland at the meeting point at the arranged time. They broadcast the encounter on social media and handed the evidence to the police. Mr Sutherland was convicted of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child and related offences. He appealed against his conviction on the basis that the covert investigation (and the use of the resulting evidence by the prosecuting authorities) breached his right to respect for his private life and correspondence under ECHR Article 8.