The domain is for sale!
contact: craig AT

Charitable Trusts III

kazzasingh's version from 2018-04-28 14:47

Orthodoxy: purposes not activities

Question Answer
Hunter v A-G (1899)All about purposes! Activities are not relevant when deciding whether or not you are charitable (only concerned with what you were set up to do, not how you do it)
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v A-G (1972)When you're considering the purposes for which an organisation is established, the intended manner of operation is not a relevant factor.

Challenging the orthodoxy (Determining the purposes of a particular trust)

Question Answer
Lyell v Kennedy (1889)You can set up a charitable trust over chattels without any formalities required at all. There may be no written evidence to determine what the purpose of the trust is.
Independent Schools Council (2011)Take into account 'all the circumstances' where no written constitution.
Re Resch's WTNo written constitution or documents identifying its general purposes. The privy council was forced to look at how the hospital operated in practice in order to extrapolate from that and determine what the purposes were.
Re KoepplerTrust in question was set up to run an academic conference every year to talk about disarmament. The way in which the activities were carried out was neutral. HELD: due to neutrality --> educational rather than political.
A-G v St Cross Hospital (1853)If you've got an organisation which has been operating for years, then under the doctrine of long usage, you can just look at the way in which it has been carried over the years as evidence both of its existence and the terms under which it was established.

Challenging the orthodoxy (Novel purposes)

Question Answer
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (1972)Despite the existence of a written document, you can still look at whether those purposes are charitable or not. HELD: looking at the way in which their activities benefit the legal profession, it was charitable.
Southwood v A-G (2000)This was a case where we did have a clear written document (to advance education...). HELD: the court was looking to undermine the constitution.

Challenging the orthodoxy (Where it is from clear precedent)

Question Answer
Re Shaw's WT (1952)Once it is found that there is a trust of an educational character...the matter speaks for itself
A-G v RossIf the union was of a charitable nature when formed in 1971, it cannot have been deprived of that nature by the activities carried on subsequently in its name
IRC v Educational Grants AssociationDenning --> If you had a purpose to advance education (broad) it would be acceptable to look at the activities in order to determine whether or not it was charitable. HOWEVER other judges in case declared his view as heresy.

Lack of bright line between purposes and activities

Question Answer
Re Hood (1931)A testamentary gift to spread various Christian principles and to encourage temperance. HELD: the promotion of temperance was one of the ways of advancing Christianity. So it was relegated to the status of an activity in pursuit of that other purpose. This was done to avoid promoting temperance from being a political purpose.

Charity and Philanthropy

Question Answer
Re MacDuff (1896)Philanthropic purposes do not come within the context of legal charity.

Crippling the legal definition of charity?

Question Answer
Karen Kayemeth le Jisroel v IRC (1931)It is philanthropic, BUT NOT charitable to settle Jewish people in Palestine.
A-G v National Provincial and Union Bank of England (1924)It is philanthropic, BUT NOT charitable to advance patriotic purposes in a British Empire
Re Sidney (1908)It's not charitable to advance emigration
Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v IRCNOT charitable to promote foxhound breeding
Re StrakoschNOT charitable to strengthen relations between countries
IRC v BaddeleyNOT charitable to advance recreation
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRCNOT charitable to promote political purposes