Unincorporated Associations Flashcards
4 things needed for a UA to come into existence
Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell
1) 2 or more people
2) bound by mutual contract (giving rise to mutual rights and duties)
3) association has rules to determine who controls it and its funds and terms this control is exercised
4) possible to join and leave at will
Construing gifts to UAs (general)
UA’s have no legal personality so courts have to construe what donors mean in a meaningful way
Leahy v AG of South Wales
Viscount Simonds - if nothing else is known about A’s intentions, a simple gift to a UA is deemed a gift to the members of the club at date of gift
(easily displaced by evidence)
MANDATE ANALYSIS
Conservative Central Office v Burrell
Brightman J - when A contributes funds to the UA she can choose to keep ownership but give treasurer mandate to add money to general funds and spend it accordingly - once this is done mandate is irrevocable
(until then, she has a right to restrain/make good a misapplication of a fund)
Trust for present members
unlikely because Saunders
Trust for present and future members
difficult because perpetuities problem
CONTRACT HOLDING ANALYSIS
outright gift to present members as an accretion to UA’s property to be dealt with according to the rules by which the members are contractually bound
- would have happened in Burrell if Conservative Party was a UA with membership bound together with rules (no rules here exactly)
- re Reacher
Courts want to be flexible with validating gifts to UA so use contract holding analysis even if requires flexible interpretation of facts
but won’t apply if:
- impossible to find express/implied contract binding all members of the body (e.g. political parties)
If A intends her property to be used for a particular purpose
this doesn’t mean A necessarily intended to create a trust - so doesn’t necessarily preclude contract holding analysis! (e.g. like motive)
Re Reacher’s Will Trusts (when might contract holding analysis not apply)
Brightman J emphasized that contract holding analysis applied “in the case of a donation which is not accompanied by any words which purport to impose a trust”
Re Bowes
Ref to PURPOSE:
seen as a MOTIVE for the gift not evidence of intention to impose an absolute restriction on use of property
Re Thompson
court may be keen to find no trust was intended to ensure that gift can be validated under contract-holding approach
Re Lipsinki’s WT
testator gift made for “Hull Judeans Association in member of my late wife, to be used solely in the work of constructing new buildings for the association”
Oliver J stated it was a Re Reacher gift because it is “common sense”
If the trust is found, and it is a purpose and not charitable, beneficiary principle applies – gift is not valid
UNLESS Re Denley’s can be used
Trust for UA’s CHARITABLE purpose also counts
no difficulties with B principle or perpetuities
Neville Estates Ltd v Madden
Cross J sets out three possible interpretations of a testamentary gift to an unincorporated association:
1. Absolute gift to the current members as joint tenants
- Absolute gift to the members where those members will hold the property subject to the terms of the contract between them in their capacity as members
- Gift in trust to be applied for the purpose of the body
Re Recher’s WT (case itself)
Brightman J MR had to construe a gift to London province anti-vivisection society
look at wording
- does testator intend gift to members to do whatever they want?
- is it a gift to present and future members?
if NO then you can use contract holding analysis
DISSOLVING UA
money goes to MEMBERS regardless of where they came from
- because money paid is a gift bound by UA contract no strings attached (Re Reacher)
Dissolving UA (originally)
Originally courts not willing to make same analysis for external donors and raffle tickets (only giving money from subscriptions back to members) – Re West Sussex
Hanchett-Stamford v AG
Lewison J: when only two people left, they are JT of property who agreed to apply it to rules of association
When the penultimate person dies, last person has survivorship so absolutely entitled
Refused to follow Walton J’s dictum in Re Bucks II (said assets in this case goes bona vacantia back to crown)
