Charities Flashcards
What court was Oppenheim heard in and what was the split?
HoL - 4:1
What are the key facts of Oppenheim
Discretionary trust for providing educationn for children of employees and ex-employees
Because it was in perpetuity, it needed to be charitable to be valid
The issue was whether it was for the PUBLIC BENEFIT
What was the majority judgment in Oppenheim
Simonds: To be charitable, a trust must benefit a section of the public whose numbers are not neglibible. The quality that distinguishes the class from the rest of the public must not depend on their relationship to another individual or company (ie private in nature)
Who dissented in Oppenheim and what was their view
MacDermott: The personal nexus test is arbitrary and artificial.
What is the principle of Oppenheim
The class to be benefited by a charitable trust must not be defined by their personal relationship to a person or company
What court was Dingle v Turner heard in and what was the split
HoL - unanimous
What are the key facts of Dingle v Turner
Trust to pay pesions to poor employees of a company.
Issue was whether the poor relations exception to the public benefit test extended to poor employees / poverty in general
Who have the leading judgment in Dingle v Turner and what was it
Lord Cross: To draw a distinction between different types of poverty trusts (eg relations vs employees would be illogical.
What is the principle of Dingle v Turner
All poverty trusts are subject to a relaxed public benefit test.
What order should you address a charities question
- Three certainties (Knight v Knight)
- Objects (no need for Bs but must be charitable and for the public benefit)
- Is it charitable?
- Is it for the public benefit? (poverty / non-poverty)
Where does it say that a charity must be for charitable purposes ONLY?
s1(1)(a) Charities Act 2006
Where does it say that charities must be for the public benefit?
s2(1)(b) Charities Act 2006
Not a charitable purpose: “benevolent purposes”
James v Allen
Not a charitable purpose: “public purposes”
Vezey v Jamson
Not a charitable purpose: “worthy causes”
Re Atkinson’s
Not exclusively charitable: use of word “or”
Chichester Diocesan Board v Simpson (charitable institutions OR other benevolent objects)
Poverty is a relative concept: failed investment fund
AITC foundation
Working class are not neccessarily poor
re Sanders
Hostel for working class during a housing shortage WAS charitable
Re Niyazi
Members of my club who fall on evil days / distressed gentlefolk WAS charitable (poverty)
Re Young
Ladies of limited means was charitable (poverty)
Re Gardom
Research is charitable
Re Hopkins (Shakespeare)
Research is NOT charitable where propagandist / political
Re Shaw (alphabet)
CA 2006 definition of religion
can be no god / more than one god s2(3)(a)
Religion does not extend to philosophies
CC decision on Scientology - no element of worship
Private masses are probably charitable
Hetherington
Cloistered nuns are not charitable
No tangible benefit Gilmour v Coates
Convents which provide services ARE charitable
Society of the precious blood
Eg of a liberal interpretation of religion
Thornton v Howe (BUT politically motivated)
Religion creates a rebuttable presumption of public benefit
Funnel v Stewart
Religion will be of public benefit unless subversive of all morality
Thornton v Howe
Hospitals can be charitable if fee-paying as long as not directed toward profit
Re Resch
Holistic therapy is charitable
HoL select committee
Spiritual healing is charitable
cc
Libraries and museums are charitable
British Museum v White
“a mass of useless junk” is not charitable (arts culture etc)
Pinion
Starting point for a q on charities
Knight v Knight, then Morice v Bishop of Durham, then statute
What 4 points do you need to cover in a charities q
- Is it (exclusively) charitable? 2. Is it for the public benefit? 3. Perpetuities 4. Failure
3 cases on whether exclusively charitable
WORTHY: Re Atkinson’s. BENEVOLENT: James v Allen. Charitable OR benevolent Chichester Diocesan Board v Simpson
Worthy is not charitable
Re Atkinsons
Benevolent is not charitable
James v Allen
Can the wording be saved
Yes, by the administration of justice act 1982, s13
4 poverty cases
Working class: Sanders; Hostel: Nyazi; Relativity: AITC foundation, Evil days: Young
3 education cases
Wide ambit: IRC v McMullen; Research: Hopkins; Propaganda: Shaw
Definition of religion
Statute - no or many gods; CC - Scientology NOT bc no worship
Liberal interpretation of religion
Thornton v Howe, Re Watson
Private masses probably are
hETHERINGTON
Religion gives rise to a presumption of pub ben
Funnel v Stewart
Pub ben assumption re religion rebuttable by
doctrines subversive of all morality Thornton v Howe
Pub ben of religion must be tangible
Gilmour v Coates, Socieaty of Precious Blood
hospitals can be fee paying
Re Resch
Spiritual healing and holistic therapy are charitable
CC, HoL
2 arts and culture cases
museums and libraries are charitable: British Museum v White; Not junk: Pinion
Sports - tax avoidance
IRC v McMullen; GMC of NZ - consequential benefit
Human rights case
Koeppler (Wilton Park) pursuit of truth - OK to be political if only ancillary
There must be an element of relief
Joseph Rowntree memorial Trust HA
Animal charities
Humans win - Nat anti vivisection society
What is the public benefit principle (and case)
Verge v Somerville: The class of beneficiaries must constitute the public as a whole or an appreciably important class of the community
Test for non poverty and majority and dissenting views
Cannot be defined by a personal nexus. Simonds: by relation to employer would be an unhealthy extension of charity law. Macdermott: Rule is artificial and arbitrary
Test for poverty trusts
Is more relaxed - Dingle v Turner. Cross; to distinguish between different types of poverty would be illogical
Threshold for public benefit
75: was OK in Koettgen. No threshhold in Black Box was not allowed
Class within a class is NOT OK (pub ben)
Baddeley
A gift over from non charity to charity has to vest within the perpetuity period
Lord Stratheden and Campbell
A gift over from one charity to another can happen at any time
Christs Hospital v Grainger AND perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
What is the starting rule for failure
Re Rymer - Initial failure, no trust, gift to seminary which had closed
Case to illustrate subsequent failure
Slevin, orphanage closed after death - interest had vested. No need for general charitable intent.
4 ways to fix initial failure
- Endowed charity (never ends) faraker. 2. Purposes (unincorporated) never end: Fingers; 3. General Charitable intent - cause. 4. General charitable intent - mistake
3 cases for general charitable intent - cause
Look to the will: satterthwaite - hated people. Not too specific: Wilson. Some spec. But some specificity can be overlooked: Lysaght - Paramount intention to benefit charity, notwithstanding impracticable to carry out minor elements.
2 cases for general charitable intent - mistake
Peace society: Re harwood; Blind School in Keighly - Re Spence (Charities NEVER existed)
2 ways to save subsequent failure
- Apply to charity commission for clarification. 2. Cy Pres under Charities Act 1993, as per Peggs v Lamb - Freemen of Huntingdon
