s4 Charities Act public benefit Flashcards
Understand the case law defining the public benefit of a charitable trust
Attorney General v Charities Commission
Development of definition of public benefit set out in s4, formulating two distinct tests. Firstly, the nature of the purpose must benefit the community (question of fact). Secondly, benefit must be for the public or a section of it (and the size depends on the purpose in question)
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities
The ‘personal nexus’ test for heads of education and religion. Cannot be a personal connection between the individual creating the trust and the trust itself for it to be of public benefit
Re Scarsbrick
‘pool’ of people encompassed to be of public benefit can be smaller for the head of poverty prevention than it is for other purposes
Dingle v Turner
Trust left to the “poor employees” of a certain company was valid as the Oppenheim personal nexus test is smaller for poverty (Re Scarsbrick) however this has since been doubted and would depend on actual size of pool
Re Koettgens
IRC v Educational Grants Association
If trust is left to % personal nexus and a % wider public, whether or not it is charitable depends on the shares. 75% in Koettgens passed but was close to the border. 75-80% to personal failed in IRC
National Anti-Vivisection v IRC
Activities that are illegal can never be of public benefit
Gilmour v Coats
Re Hetherington
Whether or not religious saying of masses or prayers is public benefit depends on whether the prayers are public or private. In Gilmour v Coats there was a closed order of Catholic nuns and the court concluded there would be no public benefit whereas in Re Hetherington the prayers were being said publicly so members of the public may get benefit from them being said (drawing comfort)
Williams Trustees v IRC
Organisation designed to promote the interests of Welsh people in London was too narrow to have a public benefit as it was defined both by a particular area and a particular creed
