Charitable Trusts I

kazzasingh's version from 2018-04-27 18:36


Question Answer
PemselEstablished the four heads of charity
Re Resch's WTPerfectly acceptable for a charity to charge fees for its services as long as money is reinvested into the charity
Re HardingA trust supposed to be for the black community of Hackney. HELD: you cannot discriminate on the basis of skin tone. It did not fail. Instead of for the benefit of the black community in Hackney, it became a trust for the benefit of the whole community.
Chichester Diocesan Fund v SimpsonNot enough for the charity to have a charitable purpose. It must be an exclusively charitable purpose. HELD: a trust set up for charitable or benevolent purposes failed on the basis that trustees, if they wanted to, could have devoted all of that organisation's assets to benevolent rather than charitable purposes. Benevolent purposes could have included a number of things that were not legally charitable.
A-G of the Cayman Islands v Wahr-Hansen (2000)A trust 'for the public good' went far beyond the legal definition of charity (so it had to fail).


Question Answer
Re StephensPrecedent is really important when it comes to charity but it does not mean that you have to stick with it. What might have been beneficial for a charity before may not be seen as beneficial in 2018.
Vancouver Regional FreeNet Association v MNR (1996)Canadian Federal Court of Appeal wanted to recognise the charitable status of an organisation that was set up to provide free internet access to the public. Novel purpose. HELD: internet reconciled with Pemsel (repair of bridges, ports, havens...)

Prevention of Relief of Poverty

Question Answer
Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust HousingIt's perfectly acceptable to have a trust to relieve the aged or the impotent (but it doesn't fall under this first head of charity). It falls under the 'other' heads of charity --> the rules are strictest under this head.
Re Segelman (1996)What's the definition of poverty? It's enough to show that your trust provides a benefit to those who 'go short' from time to time.
Re Gwyon (1930)Trust to provide pants for all boys in the village (with testator's name emblazened on the front). Every boy in the village could, every year, get a free pair. HELD: invalid as the rich boys would as well as poor boys. If it were restricted to poor = fine.
Re Scarisbrick (1951)It's perfectly acceptable to have a charitable trust to relieve the poor members of your family.
Dingle v Turner (1972)It's perfectly acceptable to have a charitable trust to relieve the poor members of your company.
A-G v Charity Commissioner (2012)There isn't any public benefit test at all for trusts to relieve poverty. HOWEVER, Jonathan Garton argues that is overstated. There is one public benefit test --> you cannot have a charity for named individuals.

Advancement of Education

Question Answer
IRC v McMullen (1981)What is education? The purposes have to be of some educational value. Education is not limited to the traditional academic setting. Any form of cultural advancement e.g. high arts, museums, musical activities.
Re Hopkins' Trusts (1874)Determining who wrote Shakespeare's plays. HELD: there was public utility to this information.
Re Shaw (1965)Setting up a trust that was going to carry out research into getting rid of our 26 letter alphabet with a 40 letter alphabet. HELD: You cannot accumulate knowledge for knowledge's sake. There must be some public utility in that information. No public utility in this!
Re Koeppler'sTrust can educate about political issues BUT it has to be done in an objective manner which puts forward BOTH sides of the argument. HELD: neutral debate about nuclear disarmament was fine.
Southwood v A-G (2000)All the speakers were pushing one particular viewpoint so the trust failed.
OppenheimYou cannot provide your purpose to a numerically negligent class. There must be no personal and contractual nexus linking your beneficiaries (becuase if there is, B's are a private class).
IRC v EGA Ltd (1967)Even if the settlors gave his trustees a duty to prefer a private class rather than the public, it won't invalidate the trust. If you do exercise it, you won't be entitled to the tax benefits associated with a charitable trust.
Independent Schools Council (2012)Even though private schools charge fees, they still have charitable status as they are providing a benefit to a section of the public (but some doubts about this --> also does it exclude the poor?)

Advancement of Religion

Question Answer
Re South Place Ethical Society (1980)What is religion? In this case, ethics (as opposed to God and promotion of worship of God) was concerned so no trust. Still part of 4th category as beneficial to community though...HELD: In order to be a trust that advances religion, the doctrine has to advance (a) belief in a supreme being (b) and worshipping a God.
1999 Decision of Charity CommissionersAlthough Church of Scientology believed in Supreme Beings, no evidence of worship. Too many activities take place behind closed doors to have any public benefit. If the Chuch invited people in then perhaps they would have satisfied the criteria.
Australia --> Church of New Faith (1983)No need for worship of Supreme Being --> just a guide about how to live your life (this goes further than English defintion). Charity Commission has now adopted this definition.
Re (Hodkin) v Registrar General [2014]Concerned whether a venue (Scientology Church) amounted to a place of religious worship for the purpose of solemnization of marriages. HELD: no need for spiritual being, just way of life (very broad and undermines Re South Place).
Thornton v Howe (1862)Any religion is better than no religion. Even if the religion is foolish - it can meet the definition of charity (worshipping unborn child --> people thought that he was the messiah). **Reflects the modern approach**
Gilmour v CoatesIs there a broader public spiritual benefit for a trust for a closed order of nuns? HELD: trust not susceptible of proof. No way of determining whether this closed group would bring a wider benefit.
Neville Estates v Madden (1962)Trust for a private synagogue. Not open to the public. BUT members could go out and spread the word of God amongst the rest of the public. HELD: this was fine.
Re Warre's Will Trust (1953)It is not enough to provide a retreat-house facility to take a break from the rigours of daily life. HELD: no advancement of religion.