Charitable and NCP Trusts Flashcards
What were the main points of ex parte West Yorkshire?
- The trust (set up to inform others about abolition of local authority) had a non-charitable purpose; therefore not charitable.
- The beneficiaries number more than a million, and is therefore unworkable.
- Because the class of claimants is unascertainable, void as an NCPT.
Verge v Somerville
A trust for ‘fluctuating body of private individuals’ is not charitable as it does not benefit ‘the community.’
Williams’s Trustees v IRC
Incoming Welsh visitors are a fluctuating body, therefore not a charitable trust because it does not benefit community.
What case is contrasted with Williams’s Trustees?
IRC v Baddeley - a charitable trust may succeed if it is available to everyone, yet nonetheless taken up by only a few.
What cases apply to s2(2)d of CA 2006? How has CA affected their scope?
Thomas v Howell, Re Resch - originally gifts to save life. Charity for health is broader than those cases. Includes mental health. Is also connected with s2(3)b.
What is the difficulty of s2(2)e, s2(3)c(i) and (ii)?
It is for advancement of citizenship and community development, and promotion of civic responsibility. This may be at odds with case law which says a trust can only be charitable if wholly and exclusively charitable, an not devoted at least partly to political causes.
What cases can apply under s2(2)f?
Re Verrall - maintenance of historical object can be charitable.
British Museum v White - a gift to a museum can be charitable.
How does s2(2)h conflict with case law? And s2(2)L?
It is for advancement of human rights, which is a political issue. Yet Mr J Lewison says in Hatchett-Stamford that no charity can be political. Advancement requires political advocacy.
The latter provision is for promotion of efficiency of armed forces, which is political.
What should be taken into account with Hatchett-Stamford v Attorney-General?
The trust wasn’t charitable, so the comments are only obiter. It was also an animal ‘charity’ - there was only one member at the time of hearing. Finally, it is a first instance decision.
According to te Charities Commission, what must a charity do to show public benefit?
- It must be an identifiable benefit.
a. It must be clear what benefits are.
b. benefits must be related to aims.
c. Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm.
Principle 2 of the Commission is that it must benefit the public. Which of the two subsections was requested to be removed during the Independent Schools case?
Principle 2b: “where benefit is to section of public, opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted
- by geographical/other restrictions
- by ability to pay any fees charged.
2c: people in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit.
How is the Independent Schoolscase mistaken?
- It said that there is no evidence of relief of poverty being prima facie a charitable aim. This contradicts 4-500 years of case law (look at Statute of Elizabeth).
- Tribunal says there is with few exceptions no presumption of such an aim being charitable, and this such benefit must be proven. This contradicts the 2006 Act. It appears they did not actually consider the 2006 Act. This could mean the case is per incuriam.
- There was a concordat from government and charity commissioners that case law prior to statute which contradicts its aims would not apply. Tribunal appears to ignore that concordat.
How would one approach public benefit in an exam?
Problem Question:
- Use 2006 Act.
- Contrast with old case law.
- Consider position given the ISC.
Essay question:
Uncertainty regarding the meaning of PB.
Consider how 2011 Act has changed the shortcomings of 2006 Act.
What distinguishes the cases of Re Simson and Farley v Westminster Bank?
Difference in wording: “for work in parish” vs “for parish work.” Former is wholly and exclusively charitable.
Contrast Chichester Diocesan Fund & Board of Dinance v Simpson from Salusbury v Denton.
The former: “for such charitable institutions or other charitable or benevolent objects.” Trust fails.
The latter: “in part towards the foundation of a charity school and as to the rest for the benefit of the testator’s relations.” Court could sever gift, valid.
Why was £100 for annual trustees’ dinner valid for charitable trust in Re Coxen?
£200k to a charity; in comparison, the dinner was an incidental private benefit. (Note: charity commission has said any private benefit may only be incidental.)
What is two different types of cy-près (“as near as possible”) application?
- Initial failure of trust- must be failure of gift AND general charitable intention must be shown.
- Subsequent failure- gift must fail, but no charitable intention need be proven. Once property is vested with charity, it stays with charity.
Depends on whether failure of trust pre-dates death of testator or not.
Re Wilson.
Re: cy-près - must be intent to benefit society, not just one society.
What happens if charity never existed?
Per Re Harwood (Peace Society of Belfast), held to be general charitable intention. Yet looks like initial failure.
Note: it might be suggested to unscrupulous testator and trustee that, if they chose to donate to specific charity that seems to indicate no general charitable intent (eg one which may benefit them somehow) then cy-près will not succeed per Wilson. However, if they nominate a fictional charity then such intent can be shown. Therefore, choose a fictional charity.
