Charities Flashcards
Sherhill v Khaira
Trustees have the power and obligation to execute a trust deed which gives practical contours to how trust funds are to be spent, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the broad purpose the settlor intended
Commissioners v pemsel
Lord cross: seems to be no obvious reason why fiscal benefits should automatically be accorded to every non-private purpose, since such purposes will vary in the extent to which they confer genuine public benefits e.g. Student unions.
Lord Macnaughten summarised the spirit of intendment of the preamble: poverty, education, religion, other
Scottish burial reform v Glasgow
The inexpensive, sanitary disposal of the dead was a charity
Lord Reid: ‘the court of appeal have gone further and have been satisfied if they could find an analogy between an object already held to be charitable and the new object claimed to be charitable
Re coulthurst
Poverty is no limited to destitution but interpreted very broadly
Re Niyazi’s will trust
Trust for a working man’s hostel in Cyprus, upheld as charitable although very close to the line that
Re gwyon
The assistance must be purely to benefit the poor
Re Keottgen’s will trust
Promotion and furtherance of commercial education-
Education extends beyond traditional institutional education
Re Hopkins will trust
Valsey J: political propaganda masquerading as education is not education within the statute
McGovern v AG
The production of mere propaganda is not the advancement of education
Shade J: a trust for research will ordinarily qualify as a charitable trust, but only if…
Re south place ethical society
Dillon J: religion is concerned with man’s relationship with God, and ethics are concerned with man’s relationship with man- trust was not charitable under religion, but was under education and contributing to mental or moral improvement
R c registrar general ex p segerdal
The church of Scientology was held to be a philosophy of existence, not a religion and so not a charity
Gilmour v Coats
The purpose must be the advancement of religion
Trustees of the British Museum v White
For the benefit of the British museum
Re Shaw
49 letter alphabet in English and translation into the new alphabet was held not to be charitable- probably a narrow decision
London Hospital Medical College v IRC
Purposes not per se educational or charitable have been held to be so of properly and traditionally associative with and ancillary to formal education
Re Bushnell
Mere propaganda is not education
South wood v AG
Mere assertion of advancement of education is not sufficient
Have to look beyond the stated purpose to see whether the method promoted public benefit
Re Pinion
A gift to an established museum is charitable can be assumed to be of public benefit from no one challenges. Here, testator object was not to educate anyone but to solidify his own and family name
IRC v Glasgow Police
A trust for the purpose of promoting athletic sports and general pastimes is not- being in the nature of a private trust for the advantage of its members
Re Grove Grady
Refuge to all animals, birds and creatures from molestation or destruction by man- not charitable as no public benefit- would be decided differently now
AG of the Cayman Islands v Wahr-Hansen
To any one or more religious, charitable or educational institution, or any organisation operating for the public good
National anti-vivisection society
The total suppression of vivisection- determination of charitable interests may involved balancing competing purposes
IRC v McMullen
The gift wasn’t provided in the interests of social welfare because it did not merely provide facilities for those deprived, secondly it was not intended to improve the conditions of life of those for whom facilities were primarily intended
Independent Schools
S4 public benefit 2 aspects:
1) must actually be beneficial, not of no value or detrimental
2) must be a benefit to the public as opposed to some private group or artificially restricted section of the public
A charity that operates abroad satisfies public benefit requirement if it’s activities would be considered charitable if carried out in England
Thornton v Howe
In the case of religion, the court appears to allow charities that it regards as having no benefit whatsoever
Oppenheim v Tobacco securities
Personal nexus test: if a class is defined by a personal nexus to someone, the class is not a section of the public
Dingle v turner
Lord Macnaughten’s dissenting criticisms in accepted by the HOL
National anti-vivisection society
A detrimental purpose cannot be charitable
Re Keottgens will trust
Personal nexus has been compromised- fringe benefits
Neville Estates v Madden
The court is entitled to assume that some benefit accrues to the public from the attendance of a place of worship of person who live in this world and mix with their fellow citizens
Gilmour v Coates
Order to nuns- by charitable- must be some engagement with the public
Re Duffy
The class of actual or potential beneficiaries must not be negligible
IRC v Baddelay
No personal nexus
McGovern v AG
Slade J: where political purpose was one of change in laws of a foreign country would fail PB test as court would have every less means of judging whether the proposed change in the law was to benefit the local inhabitants and court would have to consider foreign relations
Banor Law Memorial Trust
Promotion of one political party is not charitable
Re brushnell
Promotion of particular political doctrine is not charitable
National anti-vivisection
Promotion of a change in law is not charitable unless that purpose is mainly ancillary to the main charitable purpose
Re Resch’s will trust
Not necessarily negated by charging fees but must not distribute profits
Oxfam v Birmingham City District Counvil
Charity shop not entitled to relief from rates as it was not directed to the charitable purposes themselves
Leahy v AG for NSW
VC Simonds: a trust may be created for the benefit of persons as ceatuis que Trust but not for a purpose or object unless the purpose or objects be charitable
Re Astors Settlement
Roxburgh J: either the legal owner of the property is under an equitable obligation or he is not. If he is, someone else must have corresponding equitable rights against him which can be enforced
Re Denley’s trust deed
Good J: appeared to extend the no purpose trust- stated that a purpose which is directly for the benefit of an individual or individuals is generally outside the mischief of the beneficiary principle
Re Lipinski
Killing re denley with kindness
Re Endacott
1) erection or maintenance of monuments or graves
2) trusts for the saying of masses
3) maintenance of particular animals
Re Thompson
Pettingall orders
