Trusts- Charitable Purposes

Front 1

3 stages to discerning whether a charitable purpose trust may take effect

Back 1

1) Established for the law regards as charitable (S.1, 2, 3 CA'11)

2) The purpose satisfies the public benefit requirement (s. 4)

3) The purpose is wholly & exclusively charitable

Front 2

Re Grove-Grady

Back 2

Benefit needs be identified as question of fact but there needs not be consensus

Front 3

Re Shaw

Back 3

40 letter alphabet will provision not for public benefit

Front 4

National Anti-Vivisection

Back 4

Banning animal experimentation failed public benefit, demonstrates weighing - medical research v animal welfare

Front 5

Independent Schools Commissioner v CC for E & Wales

Back 5

Evidences how charities may charge where reasonable and necessary to the charity's work

Front 6

IRC v Falkirk Temperance Cafe Trust

Back 6

Profit should be demonstrably plowed back into charitable work

Front 7

Re Clarke

Back 7

Poverty is relative

Front 8

AITP Foundation's Application

Back 8

Can extend to people of moderate means and may include temporary financial hardship

Front 9

IRC v Oldham Engineering Council

Back 9

Trust to set up the unemployed in trade/business was held charitable

Front 10

Re Segelman

Back 10

class size here was the testator's poor relatives, upheld as valid

Front 11

Re Lucas

Back 11

Class size geographically limited to a parish or town was valid

Front 12

Re Scarsbruick Will's Trust

Back 12

Class must consist of a particular description as opposed to specifically naming poor people

Front 13

Dingle v Turner

Back 13

Issue- Should a trust for relief of poverty for poor employees be treated as charitable even though the class was defined by reference to common employment with a particular company?

read reasoning

Front 14

Harrowgate Fairtrade

Back 14

The tribunal upheld the Charity Commission's view that the shop's benefit in relieving poverty was too remote from its primary purpose of selling goods to the public

McKenna J- "we note that because the appellant regards it as a self-evident fact not requiring proof, it has not taken the necessary steps to demonstrate in this appeal whether, and if so how, the sale of fairly traded goods relieves the poverty of its potential beneficiaries."

Front 15

Re Shaw

Back 15

◦HarmanJ “if the object be merely the increase of knowledge, that is not in itself acharitable object unlessit be combined with teaching or education.”

Front 16

Re Hopkin's WT

Back 16

WilberforceJ, distinguishing Re Shaw: - “Inorder to be charitable, research must either be of educational value to theresearcher or must be so directed as to lead to something which will pass intothe store of educational material, or so as to improve the sum of communicableknowledge in an area which education may cover – education in this last contextextending to the formation of literary taste and appreciation.”

Front 17

Re Besterman

Back 17

Research the works of Voltaire and Rousseau - Needs: the subject matter be a useful subject of study, knowledge acquired disseminated to others, public benefit, or sufficient section

Front 18

Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v AG

Back 18

Education is now widely defined as encompassing the improving and dissemination of knowledge

Front 19

IRC v McMullen

Back 19

Education not confined to formal instruction in the classroom, can encompass instruction of spiritual, moral, mental and physical elements.

Halisham- "Whathas to be remembered…is that both the legal conception of charity, and withinit the educated man’s ideas about education are not static, but moving andchanging. Both change with changes in ideas about social values. Both haveevolved with the years."

"abalanced and systematic process of instruction, training and practicecontaining both spiritual, moral, mental and physical elements”(LordHailsham)

Front 20

Re British School of Archaeology

Back 20

Research should only be considered educational where it includes dissemination of the results

Front 21

Re Compton

Back 21

Requirement that the applicant demonstrates that there is no personal nexus between the settlor and the class of beneficiaries, but rather that there is a sufficiently public benefit (Green L

Front 22

Oppenheimer v Turner

Back 22

trust fund for education of a company's former + current employees children held invalid- despite employing over 100k people

Personalnexus’ test:

“(1) that the possible…beneficiaries must not benumerically negligible,and (2) that the quality which distinguishes them from other members of thecommunity, so that they form by themselves a section of it, must be a qualitywhich doesnot depend on their relationship to a particular individual…Agroup of persons may be numerous, but, if the nexus between them is theirpersonal relationship to a single propositus orto severalpropositi,they are neither the community nor a section of the community for charitablepurposes.” (Lord Simmonds)

Front 23

ISC v CC

Back 23

Re independent schools, The principle that the opportunity to a section of the public to benefit had not to be unreasonably restricted by an ability to pay fees, and that people in poverty had not to be excluded, was wrong.

Front 24

IRC v Educational Grants Association

Back 24

followed Oppenheimer

Front 25

Re Hopkins WT

Back 25

purpose masquerading as education not valid- trust for the advancement of adult education with reference to Labour Party principles was not charitable

Front 26

Re Koeppler's WT

Back 26

Trust to educate the public in the differing ways of securing peace and avoiding war had no particular purpose and was valid

Front 27

Re SouthPlace Ethical Society

Back 27

Ethics different to religion. the society here disseminated ethical principles. Definition of religion herein is outdated (belief in a god)

Front 28

Ex P Segerdal

Back 28

demonstratesthe traditional focus on belief in a supreme-being and worship thereof.

Front 29

Church of Scientology Decision

Back 29

The practice of this religious organisation was essentially private or limited to a private class of individuals

Front 30

Campbell & Cosauns v UK

Back 30

As a general proposition, religion should have a certain level of cogency, seriousness, coherence and importance

Front 31

Gnostic Decision

Back 31

Gnostic center was not charitable because there was no evidence of a clear an identifiable moral framework

Front 32

United Grand Lodge

Back 32

Advancement of religion means taking steps to spread or promote religious belief. Freemasonry failed this

Front 33

CC Guidance '08

Back 33

◦…beliefin a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses) or supreme being, or divine ortranscendental being or entity or supernatural principle, which is the objector focus of the religion…

…arelationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity [orprinciple] by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of [it]

…adegree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance◦…anidentifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework

Front 34

Gilmour v Coats

Back 34

Carmenite Nuns- Cloistered

A religion must be capable of producing beneficial effects and evidence will need to be given to demonstrate that its beliefs, doctrines and practices have this capability. Edification is okay if to the public

(GREEN, MR

Front 35

Re Etherington

Back 35

no express requirement that public may attend Roman Catholic masses, gift was construed as such

celebration of a religous rite in private fails public benefit, since any benefit of prayer is incapable of proof in the legal sense, and any edification is privately limited

Front 36

Neville Estates

Back 36

Land held for Catford Synagogue was held for charitable purposes for the advancement of the Jewish religion. Differed from the Carmenites because Jews spent time in the community

Front 37

Preston Down Trust

Back 37

Balancethebenefit and advantage where a case of detriment is raised, by examiningevidence before them as to the ‘public’ and ‘beneficial’ nature of theparticular organisation.

Here an extremely (by way of its scripture & doctrines) secluded Church was held charitable, given it had made greater effort to engage with the public (advertising of services on meeting hall noticeboards and on the PBCCwebsite; more regular street preaching; and increased engagement with the wider community.) held charitable

Front 38

National Federation of Spiritual Healers

Back 38

Provision of facilities to ease suffering was a charitable purpose

Front 39

Re Re North Devon and West Somerset Relief Fund

Back 39

Trusts for the relief of victims of disasters are charitable only to the extent they provide benefits to the ill or disabled or relieve victims of poverty. Here judgement relied on charitable intent but this is arguably not needed (Re Ulverston New Hospital Building Trust

Front 40

IRC v Oldham Training and Enterprise Council

Back 40

Whilst the Council in question did confer public benefit of vocational education and training, it had private benefits of promoting trade & commerce, and providing support services and advice to new businesses. Lightman J concluded these ancillary purposes were more than incidental and negated charitable status

Front 41

ViRSA

Back 41

Commission originally decided that the provision of training and guidance to rural communities and maintaining those communities to promote trade as a whole was charitable, but revoked decade later

Front 42

Re Shakespeare Memorial Trust

Back 42

Property held on trust to promote the works of shakespeare held under education heading as per Pemsel's case

Front 43

Re Royal Choir Society

Back 43

A body for specific artistic purposes may be charitable

Front 44

Re Delius

Back 44

Trust for the composer Delius was considered "worth appreciating" (Roxburgh J) and thus educational. Suggests that the music of a composer must be worth appreciating

Front 45

Re Pinion

Back 45

Allcontents of art, paintings and furniture to be left on trust to be maintainedas a museum for the public to view

“Ican conceive of no useful object to be served in foisting upon the public thismass of junk. It has neither public utility nor educational value”(Harman LJ)

Front 46

Re Moss

Back 46

can be for a particular animal

Front 47

Tatham v Drummond

Back 47

or for welfare of all animals here the RSPCA

Front 48

Re Grove Grady

Back 48

trust to buy land as a sanctuary for animals was held not to be of charitable purpose

Front 49

National Antivivsection

Back 49

balancing act

Front 50

Re Wedgwood

Back 50

Trust for the prevention of cruelty to animals serves public morality and thus is charitable

Front 51

Latimer v CIR

Back 51

cite in conjunction with S.1 (1)(a) charitable trust is void if non charitable purpose is not incidental

L Millet- distinction should be drawn between ends, means and consequences. if ends are exclusively charitable then charitable status is not lost

Front 52

AG v Ross

Back 52

SU charitable, despite one o its objects relating to affiliation with the non-charitable NUS, since this was an ancillary purpose that FURTHER the main purpose, education

Front 53

Chichester Diocesan Fund

Back 53

trust void- testator had provided that trustees could choose a NCP by including 'or benevolent object or objects'

Front 54

Re Macduff

Back 54

trust for charitable purpose OR philanthropic was not charitable

Front 55

AG of the Bahamas v Royal Trust

Back 55

'And' does not necessarily mean trust will be charitable. Presence of both 'and' and 'or' meant trustee still had a choice to act uncharitably

Front 56

Bowman v Secular Society

Back 56

Cannot pursue political objectives

Front 57

McGovern v AG; CC Guidance 2010

Back 57

An organization will be considered pursuing political purposes where its main purpose is party-political in nature or lobbies for change of law, policy and or government position

Front 58

Re Rhymer

Back 58

Where gift is intended for a particular charitable institution, as opposed to institutional purpose, and the institution has failed to exist prior to testators death - Initial Failure

Front 59

Re Spence

Back 59

Megarry VC- indicates that a gift for specified purpose or institution means general charitable intent is unlikely to be found

Front 60

Re Wright

Back 60

If an acceptable (legally speaking) charitable purpose fails, the court will apply cy-pres regardless of intent

Front 61

Re Hardwood

Back 61

Easier to find general charitable intent where the organization never existed, depending on circumstances

Front 62

S. 62-67

Back 62

Surplus Funds

Gift charitable, but organisation does not need it

S.67 - Original spirit must be maintained