Unit 4 Flashcards
Preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
- Relief for the aged, poor, and sick.
- Support for soldiers, mariners, and education (e.g., schools, universities).
- Repair and maintenance of infrastructure (bridges, ports, highways, etc.).
- Aid for orphans and provision of houses of correction.
- Assistance for the marriages of poor women.
- Support for young tradesmen and handicraftsmen.
- Redemption of prisoners and captives.
- Relief from taxes for poor inhabitants.
Section 3(1)(a) of the Charities Act 2011
the prevention or relief of poverty;
Section 3(1)(b) of the Charities Act 2011
the advancement of education;
Section 3(1)(c) of the Charities Act 2011
the advancement of religion;
Section 3(1)(f) of the Charities Act 2011
the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
Section 3(1)(h) of the Charities Act 211
Advancement of human rights, etc
Section 3(2)(a) of the Charities Act 2011
(i) A religion involving belief in more than one god,
(ii) A religion not involving belief in a god.
s.1(1)(a) of the Charities Act 2011
defines a ‘charity’ as one which ‘is established for charitable purposes only’
Section 4(1) of the Charities Act 2011
A charitable purpose under section 3(1) must provide public benefit to meet the “public benefit requirement.”
Section 4(2) of the Charities Act 2011
It cannot be assumed that a purpose inherently benefits the public; this must be proven for section 3(1).
section 67 of the CA 2011
When applying cy-près, the court or the Commission must have regard to the following matters
67(3)(a) - The spirit of the original gift
67(3)(b) - The desirability of securing that the property is applied for charitable purposes which are close to the original purposes
67(3)(c) - The need for the relevant charity to have purposes which are suitable and effective in the light of current social and economic circumstances
Dingle v Turner
There are fiscal and legal types of advantages.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Pemsel (1891)
Four heads of charity:
* for the relief of poverty
* for the advancement of education
* for the advancement of religion
* for other purposes beneficial to the community
Re Coulthurst
Poverty does not mean destitution; individuals need not be completely destitute to qualify as poor. A fund for widows and orphans of bank officers was valid, as evidence showed they needed assistance. The word “poverty” is not required in the trust’s wording if the intent to relieve poverty is clear.
Re de Carteret [1933]
Charity to assist the “distressed” was valid as they were deemed poor enough.
Re Young [1951]
“Fallen on evil days” was considered sufficient to indicate poverty.
Re Gwyon [1930]
A trust to provide clothing for boys aged 10-15 was invalid as it lacked a poverty condition. The trustees could not exclude affluent beneficiaries, and the gift did not specifically target those in need.
Re Drummond [1914]
A bequest for holiday expenses of spinning department employees was invalid, as the beneficiaries could not be regarded as poor.
Re Sanders’ WT [1954]
A trust to provide dwellings for the “working classes” was invalid, as the term did not specifically indicate poverty.
Helena Partnership Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 569
A housing association providing rental accommodation was denied charitable status, as it did not clearly state that only the poor would benefit.
Re Niyazi’s WT [1978] 1 WLR 910
A trust to fund a working man’s hostel in a needy area was valid, as the judge concluded it was intended for the poor.
AG v Margaret & Regius Professors at Cambridge
The advancement of education was expressly recognised as a charitable purpose.
Gifts for academics can be for the advancement of education
Case of Christ’s College, Cambridge (1757)
Advancement of education covers paying salaries of teachers/administrative staff
Re Shaw
A school to train pickpockets was deemed not charitable, as teaching alone does not suffice for the advancement of education.
Re Hummeltenberg
Training spiritual mediums was held invalid as a charitable purpose.
Re Mariette
Squash courts were deemed valid for advancing education through leisure activities.
Re Dupree
A youth chess competition was recognised as valid for educational purposes.
McGovern v Attoerney General
For research to be charitable:
1. It must focus on a useful area of study.
2. Its results must benefit the public.
3. It must aim for publication.
Re Shaw
Research to replace the 26-letter alphabet with a 40-letter one was not deemed charitable, as it merely increased knowledge without advancing education or involving teaching.
Re Hopkin’s WT
Research on the authorship of Shakespeare’s works was held valid as charitable. Education was interpreted broadly, requiring research to have educational value or contribute to expanding educational material.
Re Delius
A trust promoting the appreciation of composer Frederic Delius’s music was valid, as it is charitable to support music of recognised value.
Re Pinion
A trust to create a museum for the testator’s art collection was invalid, as the court deemed the collection lacked artistic merit. The court deemed the contents of the collection to be a pile of junk. The Charity Commission takes a broad view of art but requires a demonstrable criterion of merit.
RCS v National Provincial Bank
Learned societies and professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Surgeons, Royal College of Nursing, Institution of Civil Engineers, and Society of Legal Scholars, are recognised as charities.
Bowman v Secular Society Ltd
Religion is commonly associated with monotheism (belief in one God).
traditional approach
Neville Estates v Madden
The law remains neutral between religions but assumes any religion is likely better than none.
Re South Place Ethical Society
Faith in and worship of God are essential attributes of religion. The trust was invalid as there was no worship of a God.
Varsani v Jesani
A trust for Hinduism was held valid.
Church of Scientology (1999)
Refused charitable status due to the lack of worship, despite belief in a supreme being.
R (Hodkin) v Registrar General (2013)
Overruled the 1999 decision; Scientology chapel was recognised as a place of religious worship.
Druid Network (2010)
Druidry was recognised as a religion, fulfilling the requirement of belief in a supreme being and providing public benefit, thus held as a charity.
Temple of the Jedi Order (2016)
Jediism was not recognized as a religion under charity law, and its practices were deemed insufficient for public benefit.
Re Raine
Funds for improving church buildings were deemed charitable as they promoted religious advancement.
Hoare v Osborne
Maintaining a church cemetery was recognised as charitable for advancing religion
Re Mylne; Middleton v Clitheroe
Providing for clergy or missionaries was held charitable as it supports religious work.
Re Hetherington
Conducting religious services was valid as it advanced religion for public benefit.
In Re Mylne
Gift to advance religion for retired missionaries was acceptable. They indirectly advance religion even though they are retired.
Re Smith’s WT; Re Resch’s WT
Upkeep of hospitals is charitable, provided they are not run for private profit.
Re Bernstein’s WT; Re White’s WT
Providing benefits for hospital staff, such as nurses, was deemed charitable.
Funnell v Stewart
Faith healing services were held to be a charitable purpose.
National Anti Vivisection
charities must not purse political objectives, especially those seeking to change the law
McGovern v AG
Amnesty International was not deemed charitable as its purposes were considered political. In 2005, it was later recognised as a charity.
English PEN Case
Granted charitable status despite devoting 25% of its funds to campaigns, including reforming English Libel Law, as campaigning was not the sole reason for its existence.
Re Atkinson’s Will Trust [1978]
A gift for “worthy causes” was invalid as it was not limited to charitable purposes.
Re Best [1904]
A gift for “charitable and benevolent” purposes was upheld, as the word “and” allowed the court to interpret “benevolent” as part of charitable purposes.
Re Macduff [1896]
A gift for “charitable or other” purposes was invalid, as “or other” suggested non-charitable intentions.
Re Coxen [1948]
A trust allocating £200,000 for medical charities, with incidental provisions for aldermen’s expenses, was held valid. The non-charitable elements were ancillary and ensured the effective administration of the main charitable purpose.
Bishop v Charity Commission [2016]
The organisation’s objectives, including promoting fraternity between nations and peace, were not considered exclusively charitable under the Charities Act 2011 s.3(1), leading to the refusal of its registration as a charity.
Gilmour v Coats [1949]
A gift to cloistered nuns was not charitable, as their prayers were deemed not provable as a public benefit, and they did not engage in external work.
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC [1948]
The society’s opposition to animal use in medical research was deemed detrimental to medical science and public health, with the detriment outweighing any benefit, rendering it not charitable.
Re Hummeltenberg [1923]
The court ruled that the benefit to the public from a training college for mediums could not be proven, despite the testator’s belief in its benefit. The decision was based on objective evidence, not personal opinions.
Verge v Somerville [1924]
A charitable purpose must benefit the public or a sufficient section of the public.
IRC v Baddeley [1955]
The “public” aspect of a charitable purpose is applied with varying degrees of stringency depending on the context.
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [1951]
The court provided limited guidance on what constitutes a numerically negligible class of beneficiaries, emphasizing that the size must not be too small to qualify.
Re Duffy (Deceased) [2013]
A gift to a care home with only 33 residents failed the test for being numerically negligible, as the class was too small to qualify as charitable.
Re Compton
A trust for the education of children of specific families was not charitable as the beneficiaries were defined by personal relationships, failing the public benefit test.
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [1951]
A trust for the education of employees’ children was not charitable because the beneficiaries were connected by a contractual relationship (employment), despite their large number, failing the personal nexus test.
Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission (2011)
The Upper Tribunal clarified that education does not inherently satisfy the public benefit requirement. Fee-charging schools must ensure meaningful benefits for those unable to afford fees, which can include scholarships, bursaries, or community-oriented services. The court emphasised that such benefits must go beyond minimal efforts, and trustees, not the Charity Commission, are responsible for determining how public benefit is provided.
Isaac v Defriez
Trusts to assist poor relatives were valid charitable trusts.
Dingle v Turner (employees)
A pension fund for poor employees of a company was upheld as charitable, with the personal nexus test not applying in poverty relief cases.
IRC v Educational Grants Association [1967]
The phrase “stick out like a sore thumb” in this context means that relief of poverty cases are unusual or stand out distinctly within charity law because they are treated differently from other types of charitable trusts. Specifically, they are an exception where the personal nexus test (a close personal or contractual relationship) does not disqualify them from being considered charitable, unlike other purposes where this relationship would typically fail the public benefit requirement.
Re Scarisbrick [1951]
A trust for poor relatives was valid, as the relief of poverty was altruistic, even with a small group of 26 beneficiaries.
Re Segelman [1995]
A trust for poor relations of the testator’s son and daughter was held valid despite the low number of beneficiaries, as the focus was on poverty relief.
Attorney General v Charity Commission [2012]
The Upper Tribunal confirmed that the Charities Act 2006/2011 did not alter the validity of trusts for poor employees and relatives. For poverty relief charities, only the “benefit” aspect must be satisfied, not the broader “public” aspect.
Gilmour v Coats [1949]
A trust for nuns conducting private religious practices within a convent was not charitable as it lacked demonstrable public benefit.
Re Hetherington [1990]
A gift for public masses was held valid as the services were open to the public, satisfying the public benefit requirement.
Neville Estates Ltd v Madden [1962]
A synagogue’s services for members were valid as the members lived publicly and engaged with the community, contrasting with the seclusion in Gilmour v Coats.
The Preston Down Case
The Gospel Hall Trust of the PBCC initially had its application for charitable status rejected in 2012 due to insufficient evidence of public benefit. Following an appeal and revisions to its governing documents to include commitments to wider social engagement and proper religious practices, the Charity Commission agreed in January 2014 to register the Preston Down Trust as a charity.
IRC v Baddeley [1955]
The trust aimed to provide social and recreational facilities for Methodists in West Ham and Leyton. The House of Lords held that it failed the public benefit requirement as it was restricted to a specific “class within a class.”
Williams v IRC [1947]
A gift to establish an institute for Welsh people living in London failed to meet the public benefit requirement, as it was too restrictive.
Re King [1923]
surplus funds from a residuary estate, after installing a stained glass window in a church as intended, were directed to other charitable purposes closely aligned with the original intent.
Biscoe v Jackson (1887)
A testator allocated funds for a soup kitchen and cottage hospital in Shoreditch, but the lack of suitable land made the purpose unachievable. An example of initial failure to carry out the intended charitable purpose.
Re Harwood (1936)
A gift of £200 to the Wisbech Peace Society and £300 to the Peace Society of Belfast failed as the former ceased to exist before the testatrix’s death, and the latter never existed.
Wanted to give the money to the specific organisation
Re Finger
The testator’s will included gifts to charities, indicating general charitable intent. The cy-pres doctrine was applied, allowing the money to be redirected to a similar charitable purpose.
The entire will reflected charitable giving.
Re Satterthwaite
The testatrix left her estate to animal charities, expressing a strong dislike for humans. Despite her unusual sentiment, it was deemed that she had a general charitable intention, as she clearly did not want her money going to humans.
Re Faraker
The original charity in the will merged with another organisation. The court ruled there was no failure and allowed the funds to go to the new organization.
Re Harwood
The £200 gift was given to a specific society, not a cause. Since there was no general charitable intent, the resulting trust applied, not the Cy-près doctrine.
Re Spence [1979]
The testator left a gift for a home for the elderly, but the home ceased to exist before the testator’s death. Since the gift was to a specific institution and there was no general charitable intent, the Cy-près doctrine did not apply.
Re Rymer
A £5,000 bequest was made to a London seminary for training priests. Since there was no general charitable intent, the Cy-près doctrine did not apply.
Re Slevin
A bequest was made to St. Dominic’s Orphanage, which still existed at the testator’s death but closed before the funds were paid. The gift was valid despite the closure, and Cy-près applied.
Kings v Bultitude [2010]
A charitable bequest intended for a church closely associated with the testator was deemed to have ceased to exist at the testator’s death. This was initially considered a subsequent failure, but later classified as an initial failure.
