| Harries v The Church Commissioners for England | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court |
| Citation(s) | [1992] 1 WLR 1241 |
| Keywords | |
| Duty of care, ethical investment, | |
Harries v The Church Commissioners for England [1992] 1 WLR 1241 is an English trusts law case, concerning the possibility to invest ethically. It tempers the decision in Cowan v Scargill to show that trustees can make investments, guided by ethical considerations, if it can be shown that overall financial performance would not be harmed, but also if it would be consistent with the purpose of the trust.
Contents |
The Bishop of Oxford, Richard Douglas Harries, challenged the Commissioners to change their investment policy. 85% of the fund provided income for stipends for serving clergy, pensions for retired clergy and housing for both. Harries argued that investments should not be selected that were incompatible with ‘the promotion of the Christian faith through the Church of England’ even if it involved financial detriment. The Commissioners argued their policy was fine, of regarding non financial considerations so far as it did not ‘significantly jeopardise or interfere with accepted investment principles’. Evidence showed not investing in South Africa meant not investing in 24% of listed companies.
Donald Nicholls VC held that the Commissioners policy was sound. He went on to say that one can invest ethically if otherwise there would be a conflict with the trust’s objects.