It started as an acrimonious boardroom row at an actors’ charity supported by King Charles, characterised semi-mockingly as a “thespian feud” by the media.
But now a long-running dispute at the Actors’ Benevolent Fund (ABF) is in danger of exploding into a full-blown legal battle amid allegations of law-breaking and administrative chaos.
The fund, which provides financial support to actors who have fallen on hard times, is to hold an emergency general meeting next week in the latest chapter of a long-running struggle between rival factions that has torn the charity apart for the past 18 months – and now threatens to escalate further.
The row is engulfing the Charity Commission, the charities watchdog, which has helped supervise the running of the stricken ABF for more than a year. It now faces the prospect of legal action over allegations it has mismanaged the case, overreached its powers and endorsed the unlawful takeover of a charity.
The ABF hit the headlines last year after a boardroom “coup” in which its former president Dame Penelope Keith – and several fellow trustees including the actors James Bolam and Dame Siân Phillips – were ousted in controversial circumstances by a rival group of trustees who say they want to modernise the way the charity operates.
At stake, say some of those involved, is not just the reputation and integrity of a venerable institution with roots in the great traditions of British theatre, but the credibility of the commission as a regulator tasked with ensuring charities in England and Wales comply with their legal obligations.
The ABF, which has a long history of royal patronage, and a roster of famous past presidents including Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud, has assets of nearly £40m according to its last filed accounts. It gave out £1.1m in hardship grants in 2021, helping about 500 actors experiencing ill health and poverty.
Keith and colleagues insisted they had been unlawfully removed. They claimed they had subsequently been barred by security guards from entering the charity’s elegant Grade II-listed headquarters in the West End of London. Shambolic elections at a fractious annual general meeting in December led to further chaos.
Two months ago the commission sought to draw a line under the dispute by using its powers to formally appoint members of the “takeover” group of trustees to govern the charity, arguing this was the most workable and pragmatic way to resolve an intractable dispute and protect beneficiaries.
This had the effect of further outraging the “ousted” trustees, however, who argue the commission’s decision has in effect endorsed serial breaches of company law by the charity and rewarded the illegitimate disenfranchisement of former trustees. They are now preparing to challenge the decision through the courts.
The late Queen Elizabeth was a longstanding figurehead and the king has been its sole patron – “very keen and interested”, according to the ABF – for more than two decades. The charity has won the support of countless stars of film and stage, with Hollywood celebrities understood to have been among its donors in recent years.
The regulator’s handling of the case has also raised eyebrows in the wider legal world. One senior corporate law figure is understood to have written to the chair of the commission, Orlando Fraser – himself a king’s counsel specialising in company law – to protest at the commission’s apparent disregard of the rule of law.
Some say the commission has bungled a high-profile case when charity boardroom disputes are said to be increasing. “The concern is nine trustees can unlawfully remove 10 trustees and take control of a charity. It sets a really worrying precedent to do it this big and this publicly,” one insider said.
The commission has justified its decision on the basis the “takeover” trustees received most votes in chaotic membership elections at the December AGM. But even the regulator has privately admitted the election was “flawed” and the trustees not validly appointed. Lawyers for the ousted trustees insist the election was legally invalid.
A proposal by the ousted trustees to attempt to resolve the crisis by bringing in a group of experienced, neutral trustees to oversee the ABF – including Dame Julia Cleverdon, the respected former head of the Prince of Wales’s Business in the Community charity, and the broadcaster Loyd Grossman – has, meanwhile, been disregarded.
The interim director of the ABF, David Harvey, said it had received legal opinion it had acted above board. The Charity Commission had been a “critical friend”, he said, that worked with the fund over the past few months to help it focus its future efforts on meeting the needs of its beneficiaries.
The commission denies it has acted beyond its powers and says it is satisfied there has been no deliberate wrongdoing by the “takeover” trustees. “We took decisive action to reach a practical resolution,” it said, adding: “We hope and expect all parties to the dispute will work together in the interests of the charity and its beneficiaries.”
That seems unlikely. The ousted trustees will not contest plans to revise its governing articles at Tuesday’s AGM or stand again for election but say they are determined to ensure the rule of law is upheld and not trivialised as a “luvvie” row. “This is not a Punch and Judy show,” said one source. “We are not just going to go away.”
