Charitable Purpose Trusts Flashcards
Re Lord Stratheden and Campbell
Charitable trusts are not subject to the perpetuity rule but property is and must be vested in the charity within 125 years
Gaudiya Mission
Charitable trusts are public trusts for the purpose of benefiting a community
Moggridge v Thackwell
Certainty of purpose rules are much more flexible, sufficient that the property is intended to be applied charitably and it does not matter that the trust fails to provide with reasonable certainty what that purpose is
RSPCA v AG
Charities can be subject to JR, but there are restrictions
Independent Schools Council
No longer a rebuttal presumption that certain purposes are presumed charitable such as education
- Guidance on ‘public benefit’ given by the Ch. Commission was described as ambiguous
Re Shaw
Whether the purpose is beneficial is a question of fact and down to the court to ascertain, it is irrelevant that the testator believed it to be so
Anti-vivisection Society
Benefits are weighed up against detriments, where the latter outweighs the former the principle will not be satisfied - here the detriment to advancement of medical research was seen to outweigh it so not charitable - look at how ‘public benefit’ changes, the latter was for the same cause and held to be charitable 50 yrs earlier
Re Resch’s WT
Sometimes, indirect benefits to the general public will be relevant, more so for medical things, not education - largely speculative
Re Compton
‘Public’ must be satisfied, can be numerically negligible but must not be family, friends or related to a particular individual or contract
The Abbey
Charities can charge fees, but these must not unreasonably restrict access - can also make profit providing this is furthering the charity’s aims
Bowman v Secular Society
Charities cannot pursue political objectives
McGovern v AG, Anti-Vivisection
An organization will be considered political where it its purpose is party-political, advocates or opposes a change in the law or policy in either England or abroad
Also do not want to infringe on legislature
Stevens and Feldman (people)
They have criticised the law on charities not allowed to have a political aim as outdated and in Anti-Vivisection, it could be said that the HL did in fact judge the proposed change in the law to be bad - also difficult to draw the distinction - obvious caveats are where an aim is for racist change, e.g. also party-political should not be char.
Pemsel’s Case
The prevention or relief of poverty and ‘those in need’
Re Coulthurst
Poverty encompasses, but is not restricted to, complete destitution, funds for those who have fallen on financial hardship or the unemployed will be viable
Re Sanders’ WT
Re Niyazi’s WT
A trust for ‘dwellings’ for the ‘working class’ was void as there was no requirement to be poor
However, in N the word ‘hostel’ suggested modest accommodation for those in need
Re Gwyon
A gift cannot be manipulated to look like a CP trust
Re Segelman, Re Lucas
The relief of poverty is given a much broader application and it is possible for the testator to leave a CPT for poor relatives, or a poor small geographical area
Dingle v Turner distinguishing Oppenheim (Lord Cross)
A CPT was upheld for employees as it was for the relief of poor people, this therefore extended the relatives rule for poverty relief - the considerable size of this company helped
Oppenheim was for the provision of education, where there are more likely to be fiscal advantages so this employee trust was not charitable
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for E & W
Education is now widely defined to include not only schools but any improvement or dissemination of human knowledge
- the results of research need to be disseminated and private research will normally not qualify
Case of Christ’s College, Cambridge
IRC v McMullen
Charitable purpose includes paying teachers
Not confined to classroom instruction but includes moral, spiritual, mental and physical elements
Re Hopkins’ WT, Re Shaw
Research is included in education and it is for the court to have regard of its aims and utilities - it is not for the court to look at the outcome but rather whether the research itself was a legitimate area
Shaw’s alphabet did not qualify as its object merely tended to the increase of knowledge but no teaching or education - Hopkins qualified that academic research is okay, as it has future value
Oppenheim (Lord Macdermot dissenting)
Dingle v Turner
Leading case on public benefit of educational purpose trusts - there must not be a negligible class of people but there must also not be a ‘personal nexus’ which links each object of the potential class to one individual or organisation – this case is at odds with D v T
Lord Cross (obiter)
The courts should have regard of the motives for the CPT and if one of them is for fiscal immunity, as opposed to a mere by-product, then those motives should be regarded negatively when considering what the public benefit is
The Independent Schools Council
Re Hopkins’ WT (Wilberforce J)
Just because there is no personal nexus it does not follow that a trust is for the public benefit
Research needs to be disseminated and not purely for a private researcher or members of a particular society
Re Hopkinson
Political motives masqueraded as the advancement of education will not be charitable, here, it was adult education in the realm of the Labour Party
Re Koeppler’s WT
Trust’s whose aims are less partisan will be deemed charitable, here it was educating on securing peace and avoiding war with no political stance
Webb v O’Doherty
Funds of SUs must not be spent on political purposes which do not further the students’ general aims - e.g. the withdrawal of free milk and anti-Gulf War campaigns
Thornton v Howe
Funnell v Stewart
The definition of religion has been significantly widened including a Joanna Southcote’s works who claimed she was with child and would give birth to the second messiah and faith-healing churches
NB also in the latter case that they need not be advertised but merely be open to the public
Re South Place Ethical Society
A society disseminating information on ethical principles was not for the advancement of religion as it concerned man’s relationship with man, not god - was, however, an advancement of education - Dillon J also stated that it had to be a relationship with god but this is now inconsistent with statute
The Gnostic Centre
There needs to be teaching and an identifiable moral framework for the advancement of religion, which is a new requirement
United Grand Lodge
Although Freemasonry has a supreme being it does not spread or promote religious belief and is therefore not for the ADVANCEMENT of religion
Gilmour v Coats
Re public benefit - faith and prayer are insufficient to constitute a public benefit in the advancement of religion
Re Hetherington
Neville Estates Ltd
In contrast to Gilmour, a trust for the giving of mass was charitable as the public could attend - there was also a benefit to the RC Church as priests would be paid a stipend and the money could be used elsewhere
The members of the synagogue were a sufficient section of the public and they spent time in the community unlike Gilmour
Re Resch’s WT (health)
The advancement of health or the saving of lives - fees are okay as long as they do not exclude too much, here they were at cost price so excluded the poor but benefited the general public still
IRC v Oldham Training and Enterprise Council
It was sufficient that the organisation benefited the inhabitants of Oldham and that they aided the unemployed, which benefits the state - however, the council also conferred benefits on private individuals through promoting commerce and was therefore not exclusively charitable - not a charity
Re Delius (Roxburgh J) Re Pinion
The advancement of arts, culture, science, heritage - still needs to be of some utility to the public, of some artistic merit and satisfy the public benefit test
In the latter, the work would probably not be adequate as it was of ‘poor quality’, but how to know?
Williams’ Trustees
Even if found to be of cultural value, it still must be exclusively charitable and available to a portion of the public - this would be probably be charitable today (Welsh in London) as not numerically small and no personal nexus, although it had other aims which were not exclusively charitable
Re Durpee’s Trusts
Chess is considered a sport due to the mental exertion
IRC v Baddeley
A trust for playing fields for members of a Methodist Church did not satisfy the public benefit requirement because it was for members of the church in a particular geographical area, which was a class within a class and therefore not for the public benefit
Guild v IRC
It is sufficient that a community centre provides for the public at large and not for those who are suffering from disability, impoverished, etc.
Re Strakosch
The appeasement of Dutch and English speaking sections of the South African community was too vague although it could have been upheld if this hadn’t been the case
McGovern v AG
R v Radio Authority, ex p Bull
Trusts for the advancement of HR must still not have a political end in and of themselves, although they may achieve a charitable end with political means - these was not charitable - they must also be exclusively charitable
Pemsel’s Case
The relief of those in need - now separated from poverty - includes the relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage - since this is now distinct from poverty they therefore do not need to be poor
Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust
Relief by virtue of ‘age’ - this was charitable even though the Bs had to make a substantial financial contribution and the trust made profit if they sold the lease - this was outweighed by the suitable accommodation for aged people, community services and a warden
Re Moss
The advancement of animal can be of a particular animal
or to all animals
or to the improvement of the slaughter of animals
Re Grove-Grady
Hanchett- Stamford
Re Wedgwood
- A trust to be buy a sanctuary for creatures was not charitable as it had no public benefit
- the benefit can be indirect
- the indirect benefit is for the elevation of public morality and the promotion of humanity
Re Good
Efficiency of public services means physical efficiency which can include academic endeavours (a library in Good) or outdoor sports area in Gray
Chichester Diocesan Fund
A CPT must be exclusively charitable NB or or and being used- benevolent can be wider than charitable as here
Re Sutton
Re Macduff
AG of Cayman Islands
‘Charitable and deserving objects’ was held to be charitable but not
- Charitable or philanthropic or
- public good
Latimer (Lord Millett)
Distinctions need to be drawn between ends, means, and consequences of charitable purposes - the charitable status will not be lost providing the non-charitable benefits are merely means to a charitable end OR incidental of a charitable end
Re Coxen
Severance is possible where the language allows for such a division and the amount allocated can be quantified
Biscoe v Jackson
General charitable intent
Re Finger’s WT
NB distinction between incorporated and unincorporated bodies - former will usually be valid as it is a gift for a purpose whereas the latter is for an institution but can then be fulfilled cy pres
Re Slatter’s WT
Re Harwood, Re Spence
Cy-pres doctine for initial failure - must look very carefully at testator’s intention - e.g. a specific hospital like here - Martin has criticised
- there have been anomalies where it seems that there is no general charitable intent but it has still been construed as being such
Re Spence
Charity by association - a number of similar gifts left, one of which fails, will be applied cy-pres providing it would have been charitable and is similar to the other institutions
Re Jenkin’s
Re Satterthwaite
Distinction between failure of one of several trusts for non-existence and one for non-charitable - former cy pres
Re Slevin
Re King
A CPT becomes subsequent on the death of the testator, where the purpose has not failed but it becomes impractical e.g. the tenant of a convalescent home dies
Also where a purpose has been fulfilled but there are leftover trust funds
Varsani v Jesani
Re JW Laing
s62 jurisdiction to alter the purpose of the gift by virtue of the cy-pres doctrine – important as it involves altering the original purposes of the charity to enable the property to be applied in another way than intended
NB the CL jurisdiction if s62 rejected,spirit must not be altered - admin
