Charitible trust Intro- what is the law of charitble trusts about?
Chairty= chairbitle purpose= cpt status - need sole purpose of charity
Charitible trust Intro- what is cpt an effective device?
Cpt is quite effective device which person itnervvios or will give money to trustess hold money legal or fidicuary duty to aplly for charitable purpose.
Charitible trust Intro- what is cp set out in and what is accepted?
Cp set out chairty act 2001– poverty, education, religion saving lives, human rights, these are accepted legal charitable purpose= 13 heads of charity used to accepted legal charity purposes.Purpose has to be 1 or more 13 heads of chatiry to be cpt
Charitible trust Intro- what did cp used to be?
Used to be 4 heads but have been out by updating of ca.
Charitible trust Intro- cpt is a good device to achieve what?
cpt is good device to achieve give money to trustees and ask to apply for designated cp.
Charitible trust Intro- what is the 2nd and 3rd purpose?
2nd the purpose must be suff public benefit for any cp to be accepted as charibtle by chairtble comm3rd any chairtble prupsoe to be accepted cp has to eb exclusively for cp .
Charitible trust Intro- what must not be mixed?
Not for chairbtle and other non charitable purpose musnt be mixed.
Charitable Giving- what do philanthropic minded persons often seek?
Philanthropic minded persons often seek to contribute to the well-being of society by either:-Donating money/property to voluntary established bodies, set-up for charitable purposes (e.g RSPCA, Oxfam etc);-By giving money/property to trustees of their own choice to be held on trust for purposes which are charitable in law.
Charitable Giving- or what do people also do?
Or do it pon individual basis- often people hink about doig in wills when die or giving money to trusteespeople are to hold money on trusts FOR PURPOSES DEEMD CHARITABLE IN LAW
Legal Vehicles of Charity -what has charity always been in the governments eyes?
Charity is an interesting legal concept –something british gov – have always been ahppy to support and encourage
Legal Vehicles of Charity -what is charity essentially?
Charity essentially is a body/individ/sole trader/partnership.club a trust- some sort of legal institution which has been accepted as a charity and reistered as such by charity commission-
Legal Vehicles of Charity -how are they accepted?
cos commis satisfied and given charity numbe that the objects of trust or company or corp or partnership or sole trader are exlusively charitable objects-
Legal Vehicles of Charity -what happens to the purpose?
prupsoes carries on, falls within atleast1 or more of heads of charity-accepted charitable purposes as listed in s.3 of charites act 2011 and well llook at list in due course,
Legal Vehicles of Charity -what is charitble prupose for trust simply?
chairble purpso 4trust are simply 1 vehicle through which the object f chartable giving can be achieved ansd secured= 1 device.
Legal Vehicles of Charity -so charity set out in what?
So charity set s.3 listed
Legal Vehicles of Charity -what happens if commision accepts you?
if u can get commission to accept purpose of ur behaviour conduct as charitable=reg charity get loads fo tax exemption etc-
Legal Vehicles of Charity -to achieve a cp you have to be a what?
toa chieve Cp U CAN BE AN INDIIVDUAL , trading, corp , UA –
Legal Vehicles of Charity -what are there diff bicycles?
these are the diff bicycles u can cycle to achieve goal of charitable purpose/-chartable purpose trust is just 1 such legal vehicle to achieve, the objects and prupsoe of charitable behaviour. Because the trustd evice, purpose trust device is a evry useful 1 to secure a chairtble purpose to make sure fulfil- giving money to trustees to achieve that purpose- forms a subject of CPT – that’s why include in
Legal Vehicles of Charity -so what are the legal vehicles of charity?
Legal Vehicles of Charity : Charities can be either: Charitable Purpose Trusts (subject of this lecture/topic) Charitable Organisations: Corporations – E.g Certain Universities. Certain Unincorporated Associations carrying on charitable objectives, e.g Abused Women’s Support Club, certain religious orders, Miners Welfare Society etc.
Charitable Purpose Trusts-what is the 1st legal vehicle?
Charitable Purpose Trusts
Charitable Purpose Trusts- what about this device to achieve charitble giving?
So cpt-this device to achieve charitable giving is very pop one, an often used by testaotrs trixs when make wills, to apply that moneyf or fulfil of cpt – in accepted list. So moneyw ehre we used trust device –
Charitable Purpose Trusts- how does this work?
Money/Property is given to trustees who hold the money on a purpose trust, tom apply the money for the fulfilment of a charitable purpose.
Charitable Purpose Trusts- how can cpt be policed and enforced??
Charitable Purpose Trusts, can be ‘policed and enforced’ by Charity Commission/Attorney General and may on on in perpetuity.
Charitable Purpose Trusts- what is it not subject all against?
not subject all against peprtual trust U DON’T NEED A SHELF LIFE. CHARIBLE PURPOSE CAN GO FOREVER- U CAN HAVE MONEY TIED UP WITH TRUSTEES SOMETIEMS BACK TO 2 -400 YRS BC IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNLIKE PERP
Benefits of ‘Charitable Purpose Trusts- what are the ben of cpt?
Massive Tax advantages – Charities benefit from very favourable fiscal treatment, e.g tax exemptions, exemption from Stamp Duty, domestic rates etcCharity Commission and ultimately the courts decided whether a purpose trust is charitable. If Commission accept a trust is charitable, it is then given a registration number and becomes an official registered charity.
Benefits of ‘Charitable Purpose Trusts- what so hwo does gov idnirectly subside?
So gov indirectly subsides reg char by not taxing in same way me and u are tax, an exemption deed thjis is question of law but if don’t agree appeal- charity commission very pwoerul body – whether how these trust policed, very powerful effectively monitor police and update reg..
Benefits of ‘Charitable Purpose Trusts- what does that show?
That shows put in reg of charites, official registered charity.
Benefits of ‘Charitable Purpose Trusts- how will a c purpose trust be decided?
Any dispute as to whether a purpose trust is ‘charitable’ in nature will ultimately be decided by the court.-ultimatrly tribunal or ultimately court- tend to tribunal now
Benefits of ‘Charitable Purpose Trusts- what can be approved by commision/high ct?
Once a gift on trust is accepted as a dedicated charitable purpose trust, if the purpose cannot be carried out for some reason, (e.g outdated) a cy pres scheme can be approved by the Charity Commission/High Court to direct the gift to a similar alternative charitable purpose.
Benefits of ‘Charitable Purpose Trusts-e.g of cy pres?
cy pres = near as possible – to diret gift used for similar- so fi have trust set up 1776, 100,00 on trust to apply it for working classes – can ask for cy press cheme to bend that purpose to a MORE MODERN ONE- AS ENAR AS POSSIBLE TO PURPOSE WHO INTEDED THAT TRUST-Mupdated wording of that purpsose and carry the charitable purpose on slightly amended fashion, so once established cy pres doctrine,purposes gone forever
Essential Requirements of a valid Charitable Trust-what re the 3 req of cpt?
The Purpose must be Charitable within the legal definition of ‘Charity’There must be sufficient ‘Public Benefit’The purpose musty be an ‘exclusively’ charitable purpose.
Essential Requirements of a valid Charitable Trust-3 requirements in other words?
Hurdl 1 – purpose must be charibtle within legal def of charit as set out in s.3 charities atc 2011- long lsit of legall recog charitable purpose- have to show ur purpose fits- look in min 2nd – have to show there must be sufficient PUBLIC BEN3rd- purpose must be an EXCLUSIVELY CHARITBLE PURPOSE
Legal Definition of ‘Charity’- what about the legal def?
Legal definition is more technical than everyday understanding of concept of ‘charity’.- back in day used to have 4 heads of charit set out in preamble
Legal Definition of ‘Charity’- for trust to be chartible in legal sense?
For a trust to be charitable in the legal sense, its purposes must be either:Within the range of purposes listed in the Preamble to Charitable Uses Act 1601 (CUA)Or, be analogous to the purposes enumerated in the Preamble to be ‘within the spirit and intendment’ of the CUA, Morice v.Bsp Durham.
Legal Definition of ‘Charity’-so overall of the previous?
so for purpse to be chartable have to be within preamble to charitable uses act or be within spirt or intend
Commrs. Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531-
The Preamble to CUA 1601 was summarised by Lord Macnaugten as:(-Old alw hee – preamble to stature of elziebth the charitable prupsoes were summarised under 4 heads in the case of pemsel I r c- )
Commrs. Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531-what was summarised in the preamble?
‘Charity in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the advancement of religion and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community’.
White Paper on Charities: A Framework for the Future (1989)- what about this?
Govt. opposed wholesale abolition of the 1601 CUA Preamble, on grounds that:It would hinder the flexibility and scope for the development of charitable purposes; It might lead to certain long established charitable purposes becoming non-charitable;Any new list would soon be subject to judicial pronouncements thus making the new law as complex as the old .
Charities Act 2011 (CA)- what about this act?
This Act is the most recent version of the relevant legislation . It retains the reference to the CUA Preamble, as a means by which to give definition of charity .
Charities Act 2011 (CA)- what did this act recieve and do?
CA(the act) received Royal Assent in 14th March 2012 CA divided into several parts:
Charities Act 2011 (CA)- what is part 1?
Part 1 – deals with definition of charity/charitable purposes and public benefit test.
Charities Act 2011 (CA)-what about other parts of it?
Other Parts deal with with regulation of charities, the charity commission and (sets out ammeding law) an amendment to cy pres schemes; (which deals with) regulates the fundraising behaviour of charities and other miscellaneous matters.
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)- what does s.3 do?
def of charit 13 accepted set out in s,3 - modern - THIS IS HURDLE 1S.3(1) The 13 Heads of Charity (Builds on CUA Preamble):-(a) prevention or relief of poverty;(b) the advancement of education;(c) the advancement of religion(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives;
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)- WHAT ARE E F AND G?
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development;(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;(g) the advancement of amateur sport;and theyre all new
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)- what about h and i ?
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;-– quite big new head(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement-half million pound trustees – environment protection
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)- what about j k and l?
(j) the relief of those in need by reason of youth, age, ill-health disability financial hardship or other disadvantage;(k) the advancement of animal welfare;(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)- j k and l in other words?
J – helping those in need through finail inmpucrousty or youth – financial hardshio might overlap povK- give money ex ppt but not charitable- or animals general not pets avail to pib- charitable L – promotion of effceny of armed force/crown – charitable purpose – to buy tracksuits various sizes to be avail to soldiers of my old regiment-= could be charitable gift
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)-what does m deal with?
(m) any other purposes within subsection (4).
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)-so what does s.3 cover?
S.3 covers those purposes that are currently recognised as charitable but that do not fall under any of the specific descriptions in paras. (a)-(l), as well as allowing the meaning of charitable purposes to be expanded in future to include ‘any purposes that may be analogous to or within the spirit of any of the listed categories’.
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)-give extended more comprehensive meaning?
give ectended more comprehensive meaning – s.4 if money given to trutees to apply for purpose – if cant get In list not charitable if can next hurdle have to show- 13 heads in s.3 give extende dmore comprehsenve meaning
S.3 CA Definition of ‘Charitable Purpose(s)-what does this affirm?
This affirms the common law approach by considering the ‘spirit and intendment’ of the Preamble and reasoning by analogy, by reference to decided cases. (Pre-CA 2011 case law therefore still relevant).
what is further?
Further S.3 preserves the charitable status of purposes already recognised as charitable whether or not in the list.
S.4 Public Benefit Test- what does s.4 stipulate?
S.4 stipulates that each of the listed purposes in S.3 must be shown to satisfy the ‘public benefit test’, in order to be deemed a charitable purpose.
S.4 Public Benefit Test- s.4 if money given to trustees perhaps e.g?
s.4- if money given to trustees to apply for a purpose to be charitable trust gotta show the prupsoef alls within 1 or more of those 13 heads of charity if cant ge tin list = not charitable –f ic an have to show to be charitable has to satisfy public ben test – now .s4 says the person wishing to show must prstibley show that there is a public benefit to this trust- older trust used to be a presumption of public ben – now in evryc ase of charitable trust person wishing to persuade commison-cpt must positively prove that there is public ben of anytign public in carrying on this purpose trust, trustees must be able show to commission s.4
S.4 Public Benefit Test- s.4 no presumption?
S.4 No presumption will be made to the effect that a purpose (new and old) satisfies the public benefit test. Trustees must be able to positively show that the purpose has a real and substantial benefit to society.
Prevention or Relief of Poverty- what is there no defintion in regards to this? & case?
No definition of poverty. Case law assists:Re Coulthurst [1951]‘Poverty does not mean destitution…it may not unfairly be paraphrased as meaning persons who have to ‘go short’ in the ordinary acceptance of that term’.Poverty is therefore a ‘relative’ concept
Prevention or Relief of Poverty- overall of prevention or relief of pov?
Case law exists here- theres no real def of poverty but can say that pov is tradiotnally treated by courts as a relative concept – someone fallen upon hard times of live0 relative ocnepty – re coutlhurst tells us this
Prevention or Relief of Poverty- more cases?
Re Darling [1896] - Gift ‘for the benefit of the poor’ held charitable. - correct valid cpt Re Scarisbrick [1951] -Gift to ‘needy [poor] relations’ held charitable - needy means poor – treated as gift for relief of povRe Sanders WT [1954] - Gift for the provision of housing for the working classes held not charitable.- not chartable
Prevention or Relief of Poverty- as we will see position here?
As we will se eht eold positon was- if tehre was a gift to relieve 100,00 trustee to use same for NEEDY REL or reliveing pov- no pub ben but the req public ben for pov trusts was almost iradicated so could have trust for relief for my needy relations or relieve my family memebrs fro effects fo pov- court says was general ben – sate ben help all of us tax payers- ultitarian ben
Prevention or Relief of Poverty- what about need rela cases?
- Needy rela cases treated as cpt before 2011 and probs would stil be treated pub ben in indirect sense- all other cpt must deffo prove there is a clear public benefit, but the historically lot of cases people left a lot trust on wils, and rejection overcome..by heloing poor people whereve might find relieves for rest of us.. So needy relations cases even tho look like private fam trusts they treated valid charitable trust pov – public ben being indirect- if case now prob treated VALIF CHARI TRUST STILL
Prevention or Relief of Poverty-what will also apply here?
Lot of techinal rules construction will apply here
Prevention or Relief of Poverty-more cases?
Re Gwyon [1930] – A fund provided for a gift of clothing (knickerbockers) to boys in Farnham and district failed on the ground that the conditions for qualification, failed to exclude affluent children.-didn’t accept trust pov Re Niyazi’s Wills Trusts [1978] – A trust to provide for a working men’s hostel in Cyprus held charitable under poverty rule here.- that could be treated as charit under pov law – hostel very cheap – hostel provide Adncane educa
The Advancement of Education- what about this?
Preamble to CUA mentions education of orphans as well as maintenance of schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities.
The Advancement of Education- what about ancient universites?
Ancient universities and public schools have long enjoyed charitable status. This now covers newer universities colleges and schools;
The Advancement of Education-what are the cases on this?
See AG v Margaret and Regius Professors in Cambridge [1682]The Case of Christ’s College Cambridge [1757]Re Mariette [1915]So gifts of money to unviersites or eduction- deemd as charitble
The Advancement of Education-more cases on this?
Re McDougall [1957]Gift for purpose of education in the art of government held charitable.Re Stanford [1924]Gift for the purpose of funding the production of a dictionary held charitableRe Lopes [1931]Gift to support London Zoological Society held charitable.
The Advancement of Education-further more education cases?
British Museum v White (1826)Gift to establish and maintain museums held charitable.Re Hopkins WT [1965]Gift to fund the search for a Shakespeare manuscript held charitableRoyal Choral Society v IRC [1943]Gift to promote choral singing in London held charitable
The Advancement of Education-extra education cases?
Re Delius [1957]Gift to promote music of Delius held charitable.Re Shakespeare Memorial Trust [1923]Gift to promote classical drama and acting held charitable.Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v A.G [1972]The promotion of the publication of law reporting held charitable.
The Advancement of Education- further further education cases?
Re South Place Ethical Society [1980]The study and dissemination of ethical principles and cultivation of a rational religious sentiment held charitable.Re Shaw’s WT [1952]A gift for the purpose of establishing a sort of finishing school for Irish people where self control oratory deportment and the art of personal contact were taught held charitable.
The Advancement of Education-what about research?
ResearchRe Besterman’s WT (1980)A gift to fund research will be charitable if the results of the research are published; the research is useful and for public benefit or an important section thereof.Re Hopkins [1965]Gift by will to Francis Bacon Society to be used towards finding the Bacon-Shakespeare manuscript. Gift held charitable.
The Advancement of Education-what is crucial about re besterman?
crucial bit = published – so fi give mill trustees t fund research exra hiney that wouldn’t charitable. So reasexch has be useful
The Advancement of Education-more cases on educationnn ?
Re Shaw [1957] - GOOD JUDGMENTGift on trust for the purpose of researching the advantages of 40 letter phonetic British alphabet and translating the play ‘Androcles and the lion’ into this alphabet held not charitable, lack of public benefit.Royal Choral Society v IRC [1943]CA upheld as charitable trust a trust to promote the practice and performance of choral works.PUBLIC VALUE AND PUB BEN
The Advancement of Education-WHAT happened in re pinion?
Re Pinion [1965]T gave his studio and its contents to trustees to enable it to be used a museum of objects d’art and T’s work. Experts said work had no artistic merit. Harman LJ ‘no useful object to be served in foisting upon the public this mass of junk. It has neither public nor educational value’.sohe denied chairtble status and prop went resulting trust bank
The Advancement of Education-more cases after pinion?
Re Mariette [1915]Gift to provide Eton fives courts and squash rackets at Aldenham Boarding School. Court held playing games was charitable/educational.IRC v McMullen [1981] HLTrust to provide facilities for pupils at schools and universities in UK to play association football or other games or sports held charitable.
The Advancement of Education-cases after re mariette?
Re Dupree’s Deed Trusts [1945]Gift to promote playing of chess for young people held educational and charitable.Webb v O’Doherty [1991]Gift to student unions held charitable providing that they promote the general welfare of members and cater for their social, physical and cultural needs.
The Advancement of Education-what about poltiical purposes?
Political purposes are not charitable court cannot decide issue of public benefit here. Nor will a seemingly educational gift be upheld if masquerading as Educational:
The Advancement of Education-poltiical prupose in other words?
a poltical prupsoe e.g gift momney givne to turtstes to campign for lowering of the voting age age of 14 that would be deemd political. Or to ufn campaign against med #- so anything purpose which change law or influence gov policy is deemd poltivcla this sens.e and polticial prupose trust cannot eb charitable prupose trust. So gift of trusttes money obvs take place- the purpose fail resulting trust back cos not valuable chairt purp-
The Advancement of Education-Why can poltical p not be valid cpt?
Well bc if it’s a prupose to change law or gov polc- gov would have to decide issue of public benefit- would this be public benfit or not be public ben- so to aovid that embarrassment and that polticizin of judges in deciign whether law pol in public interest- political dec- your robbing parl function and putt them job being leigistor which si not- so how can judge decide whether change I law pol for publib ben or not- to decie 1 way or another ruve criticised judges uve takn away poltiicla neutrality- so to avoid all that if prupsoe is to change law pols change gov pol or ifnleunc gov polci it is poltiicala nd simply cannot be cpt.
The Advancement of Education-what happened in re sowcroft case connected to this?
Re Sowcroft [1898] Gift to be applied for the furtherance of Conservative principles and religious and mental improvement held charitable.case wouldn’t be held that way today- veryeexceptionmal deciuson
The Advancement of Education- more cases before religion?
Re Koeppler’s WT [1986]Gift to provide education to promote greater co-operation in Europe and the West held charitable. Had political flavour but was not partisan in supporting a particular political party.Baldry v Feintuck [1972] Use of union funds to campaign for restoration of free school milk held not charitable/political.
The Advancement of Religion- what about this?
long accept valid cpt-Originally to be charitable the religion promoted had to be ‘monotheistic’ (Re South Place Ethical Society [1980]).-Belief in 1 god now isn’t case can be poltheistc but even more than that
The Advancement of Religion-what does charities act 2011 provide?
Charities Act 2011 provides religion includes a religion which involves belief in more than one god and a religion which does not involve belief in a god, S.3.-So u can be religious for charitable pirpsoes if the cult or set doesn’t even believe in god
Charity Commission Guidance on Religion- what about in dec 2008?
In Dec. 2008 Charity Commission in Advancement of Religion for the Public Benefit defined the characteristics of religious belief for charitable purposes:- Charity commison guidnac egave guidance notes ona dvance of relgion – said that purpose belief in god
Charity Commission Guidance on Religion- what was the characterstics?
Belief in a god or gods/supreme being/divine or transcendental object or focus of the religionA relationship between believer and supreme being by worship or veneration.
Charity Commission Guidance on Religion- what are more characterstics?
A degree of cogency, cohesion seriousness and importanceAn identifiable positive beneficial, moral or ethical frameworkDoes not necessarily involve a belief in God per se.
Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14- what happened in Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14?
Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14A trust for the publication of the works of Joanna Southcote was considered to be for the advancement of religion, Joanna Southcote having claimed that she was with child by the Holy Ghost and would give birth to the Second Messiah.Thronton r.a.w – trust = prupose of it – r.a.w – treated as relgion
Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14- what happened in Funnell v Stewart [1996] 1 WLR 288?
Funnell v Stewart [1996] 1 WLR 288Faith healing movement held charitable, for the advancement of religion.
Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14- what about christianity
ChristianityNo distinction for purposes of charity law between churches – Dunne v Byrne [1912]; Re Flynn [1948]-w any gift would be deemed charible church of eng catholic etc so many Christian demoniantion- any gft deemed charit
Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14- what about other religions?
Other Religions:‘The law does not favour one religion to another’ – Varsani v Jesani [1999]Neville Estates v Madden [1962] -that involve synangog Gift to promote Jewish faith upheld as charitableThese are estba religions of course
Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14-more on other charities?
Varsani v Jesani (above)Gift to promote Hindu sect upheld as charitableMoonies – Registered CharityChurch of Scientology previosuly not charitable – Re Church of Scientology [2005].Church of sciently- said wasn’t a scharit y but in 2013
R v Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 - what happened in this?
2013 supremem held -R v Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77Supreme Court held unanimously that Church of Scientology chapel was a ‘place of meeting for religious worship’. A non-charity case, but this will be influential in reviewing the registration of the Church of Scientology as a charity. Religion being defined by Lord Toulson as a ‘spiritual or non-secular belief system held by a group of adherents which explains mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite…to teach its adherents how they are to live …in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system’
R v Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 -what about that decision?
– haven’t actually check but imagine after that dec the church of scien would re apply to get charitable status affor to them. So take loads of money in tax on thei transaction dealing assets and things and the charity commison rpeussme just reg them overtuning its original refusal to accept it as a relgion.
R v Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 cases connected to this?
Re King [1923] Gift on trust to provide for stain glass window charitable.Re Pardoe [1906]Gift on trust to provide for church bells charitable.Re Eighmie [1935] Gift on trust to provide for church cemetery charitable.
R v Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 more cases connected to this?
Re Forster [1939]Gift on trust for upkeep of the clergy, charitable.Re Caus [1934] Re Hetherington (above)Trust for saying of public masses charitable.Re Royce [1940]Trust to promote choral singing in church charitable.
R v Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 - more in other words on these cases?
r.a.w all – trust of frund would be valid public prupsoe trust as logn as prayers o r mases said in public not private. Public must be able to tend or hear. It prayers in priate wont here this is re causeRe Royce r.a.w
The Advancement of Health: Saving Lives- what about this head?
This head in CA 2011 includes purposes which would have been under the old fourth head ‘other purposes beneficial to the community’ (Pemsel). - This is new head come under 011 now givin spe sort heading under 20011 actRe Smith’s WT [1962]Trusts for the support of hospitals are charitable here.- help save lifes Funnell v Stewart [1996] Faith healing as a purpose is charitable here.-faith rhalthing valid cpt under this heading now under this ehading fiaht healing saving lives.
The Advancement of Citizenship- what about this?
Includes rural or urban regeneration, promotion of civic responsibility. Volunteering and effectiveness of charities.Charity commissioners considered an appeal to fund a public memorial to a respected national figure of historical importance such as Earl Mountbatten of Burma could be charitable, as fostering patriotism and good citizenship Annual Report 1981. Scout and Guide groups would also be covered here.-Anythign which promotes good citizen ship
Advancement of the Arts Culture, Heritage or Science- what about this?
Re Fine Lady Upon a White Horse Appeal [2006] WTLR 59Charity Commissioners recently recognised as charitable an appeal to fund a statue of ‘The Fine Lady Upon a White Horse’ in Banbury, Oxon, as advancing ‘heritage’.
Advancement of the Arts Culture, Heritage or Science-this but in other words? and case refine
Prupsoe of Advancemnt r.a.w- which is now again a new head under 2011 is cpRe fine – hadn’t appealed to raise all this money to build this statue lady whit ehors-e held money held on trust advanced local herifht cpt – was a valid chairtble trust- local heritage being advanced
Advancement of Amateur Sport- what about this?
CA now provides that the advancement of amateur sport is a charitable purpose. Sport means sports or games which promote health by involving physical or mental skill or exertion.See Re Dupree’s Deed Trusts [1945].charitable purpose trutst
Advancement of Human Rights, Conflict Resolution, Promotion of Religious or Racial Harmony, Equality and Diversity- what about this?
Prior to CA 2011 promotion of peace has long been regarded as charitable, Re Harwood [1936]Recently Charity Commission registered an organisation whose aim was to eliminate discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual parents and their children, as promoting equality and diversity, Ann. Report 2003/04.-Acdvanct human rights – again new head new from charity propose charti 2011 r.a.w all
Advancement of Environmental Protection or Improvement- what about this?
Long accepted under Pemsel’s fourth head as charitable.CA 2011 puts this under a separate head. Advancemtn this- new head r.a.w That would bev valid cpt
Relief of those in need by reason of Youth, Age, Ill-health, Disability, Financial Hardship- WHAT ABOUT THIS?
ANOTHER HEADOverlaps with poverty and advancement of health categories, to a degree.Charities such as Barnardo’s and Help the Aged are well know.Re Robinson [1951] – gift to old people of 60 years or more was charitable.
Relief of those in need by reason of Youth, Age, Ill-health, Disability, Financial Hardship-MORE cases associated with this?
Re Lewis [1955] – gift of £100 each to 10 blind girls and 10 blind boys in Tottenham was charitable.Re Sahal’s WT [1958] – gift to found children’s home charitable.CPT
Advancement of Animal Welfare- what about this?
Trust for welfare of animals generally is charitable.
Advancement of Animal Welfare-case 1 for animal welfare?
Animal welfareWill be charitb-its sepreare head now National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC [1948]A trust to fight practice of vivisection not charitable. Vivisection considered part of medical research.-national – whats vivisection- experiments on animals to help medical research- animal right scruel reasrach say necc- so didn’t have to pay etx ben being charity – lost claim for charity status yes animal welfare but tryin to change law polcuy of gov so it was poltickla and application failed
Advancement of Animal Welfare-case no.2 for animal welfare?
Re Grove-Grady [1929]Trust for an animal sanctuary to be set up without general public access not charitable.Re grove grady – r.a.w held not v cpt. NO PUBLIC CCESS IN WORIDNG OF gift SO NOT VALID CPT- animal sactuary good lack of public acces bad= no public beNeed 3 hurdles- public benefit chjaritble purpose and exlcusibity.
Promotion of Efficiency of Armed Forces, Police and Rescue Services- what about this and case?
IRC v Glasgow Police Athletic Association [1953]The association here existed to promote ‘athletic sports and general pastimes’. Held the provision of mere recreational facilities for the police was no charitable. Association was not exclusively charitable in its purposes.
Promotion of Efficiency of Armed Forces, Police and Rescue Services-more on irc case previously?
r.a.w irc – associ r..aw not charibtle it eas purely socialbleYes sports for [olicmena good but that wasn’t only purpose of Glasgow polic assocMor eefficent but arg didn’t wash- Not given charitable statsu cos wasn’t exlusively propmtoing efficney of police
Other Purposes- what about other purposes?
S.3 ensures that purposes already recognised as charitable will continue to have that status (subject to public benefit being established).
Other Purposes-examples of this?
Examples:Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v AG [1972]Publication of Law Reports – CharitableRe Driffill [1950]Protection of country from enemy attack
Other Purposes-more examples of this?
Re Smith [1932]A gift unto my country England held charitableIRC v Yorkshire Agricultural Society [1928] A gift to promote agricultural held charitable.
Political Trusts are Not Charitable- what about this - james brown?
Poltiicl trust NOT CHARITBLE WHERE PURPSOE TRUST POLITICAL WHERE TRYING TO CHANGE LAW OR INFLEUNCDE OG VPOL= SIMPLY BE STRICUK OUT THEY AAR NOT CHAITBLE ‘bonar- cos how can judge say whether ones in pub ben or not. Not jduges role.r..aw all cases
Political Trusts are Not Charitable- cases for this?
Trusts whose objects, direct or indirect are to support a political party are not charitable.Bonar Law Memorial Trust v IRC (1933) – gift to support the Conservatives not charitableRe Ogden [1933] – gift to support Liberal values not charitableRe Hopkinson [1949] – gift to promote education of Socialist philosophy not charitable.
What is Political ?- what about this?
National Anti-Vivisction Society v IRC [1948]Trust failed as the predominant object was aimed at changing the law and were therefore political. The court had no means of judging whether such a change was for the public benefit.Wht is polticl as aid are u trying change law or influence gov polcu
What is Political ?-what happened in McGovern v A.G [1982] ?
McGovern v A.G [1982] Amnesty International not granted charitable status as its main object was to secure a change in the law of UK or foreign countries. Court could not judge whether this was or was not for public benefit.-wanted hcaristble staus for tax ven but judge said this is esstnailly poliitcial even tho admirable mahnny ways was political they were tryna change law- lso acase and denied charitable satus
What is Political ?more cases on this?
Southwood v AG The Times July 18 (2000)Trust for advancement of education of the public in subject of militarism and disarmament not charitable. Dominant purpose was to promote pacifism and to challenge policies of Western governments.See also: Re Collier [1998]
Charity Commission Guidance: March 2008- what about this?
Guidance on Campaigning and Political Activity by Charities march 2008Ancillary political activity is permitted:Charities can undertake political activity as long as it not sole activityCharities can campaign and advocate on political matters
Charity Commission Guidance: March 2008-in other words on this?
Change aw 7 yr ? Also need interminSo campignig change I law to help people love ones gone missing . So yes sense poltical but thing sliek that to whate extent can cjairty get involed in campaign for change I law or gov pol. Answer seems to be they cn get involved in some poltic act as long as anicllor to main purpose and doesn’t become main purposedAllowed but musnt be predominate purpose.
Charity Commission Guidance: March 2008- more on Ancillary political activity is permitted:?
Charities cannot exist for a political purpose per seCharities can campaign for change in law and policyCharities cannot support a political party, only specific policies relevant to their charitable objectivesCharities can respond to legislative initiatives/Bills
what is the 2nd hurdle?
Public Benefit S.4 CA
Public Benefit S.4 CA- what does s.4 state?
PUBLIC BEN IS THE 2ND HURDLEs.4 states now that for any chairtble purpose to be accepted as chairbtle by chaiert commsion or chartity purose trust there must be suff public benefit demonstrated by those seeking to have that chritble insitiuon registered as char and were looking it as context cpt
Public Benefit S.4 CA- whys pub ben 2nd hudle to cross?
pub ben 2nd hurdle cross to get cpt accepted as valid chirty by charti comm, then given reg number then don’t pay any tax or v litt, that’s hwy eveyr one wants chaitble for tax benefits. Massive tax benefit s
Public Benefit S.4 CA- what must there be?
Cpt tho tried to draft in will is it chairt does purpose fall within 13 heads, 2 s.4 is there sufficient public benefit This must be provon to satisfaction of charit commiso
Public Benefit S.4 CA- what does pb mean?
Means 2 things:(i) Purpose must be for the clear benefit of the public; (ii) the benefit must be available to the public at large/sufficient section.See Charity Commission Guidance: ‘Charities and Public Benefit’ Dec.2008’.in snese must be suefull to pub not some stupid idea like something dumb e.g fall within 1st head of charit e.g education trusteestruh penguins eat knife of forks but no pub lic benfit inthat. So there must be pb has ot be gained form cpt2nd pb here mans benefit must benefit suffiecnt corss section of public rather than closed class of peopleCharit ycommi guidance look o their wsute.
(i) Clear Identifiable Benefit to the Public- cases on this?
Gilmour v Coates [1949]Gift of £500 to closed religious order of solitary Carmelite Nuns, who had no contact with outside world not charitable, lacked public benefit.Re Hetherington [1990]Gift of £2,000 to RC Bishop of Westminster for masses for souls of husband and family was charitable. Masses were said in public and had an edifying effect on those attending.
(i) Clear Identifiable Benefit to the Public- cases in other words?
r.a.w has to be clear idenitGilmour- r.a.w – q was this chairtble org – well no conattc whatsoever with outside world proay in private, ct held that religious roder not charitbel body. Yes here to promot religion but closed of to outside world so no pb. They though go through to world but judge said no. public shut out so no real pb. Re hertheting – r.a.w held to be charitable gift – cases intstimory trust of imperfdt obl- prayers amsses in private help get them into parade- held testrimentry trust of imperf oblig- but nto chairtble cos prayes said in privateRe heth- money held valid cpt – amsses held in public anyone could attnedUnlike gikmour there was suff public benefit.
(ii) Benefit must be to sufficient section of the public- cases for this?
IRC v Baddeley [1955] per Lord Simonds:Locality trusts are acceptable providing a sufficient section/cross section of the public can benefit, rather than a select few.There must be a lack of personal nexus (e.g family/employment relationship) between the people to benefit in order for there to be sufficient public benefit, Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co [1951].
(ii) Benefit must be to sufficient section of the public- what does 1st strand mean?
1st strand of pb has to be some practical benefit in some sens inferred on public general .
(ii) Benefit must be to sufficient section of the public- what does 2nd strand?
2nd means cpt proposed must have benefit to specific cross section of public
(ii) Benefit must be to sufficient section of the public- cases in depth?
Irc cas – q rose whether locality trust could gene cpt- said yes. As long as suff cros sr.a.w – so if give 50,00 to my trustess to assist the children of poor families in sohilhull area to leanr how to play chess. That could well be chaiortble and have suff public ben, cos even tho lcoali stilla suff cross sec of pub bn so can have locality trsut an dcos trust local wont necc prevent having charity staus. U need to show tho on any given factor there is suff pub ben within that loca, but obvs anrrow down u draw class us start to lose idea of public ben- so if ws 50,00 to my trustess ot help chil of poor single mothers solhill play chdes where mothers rlating edo, ur narrowing down each time. So cross section – if gets to point slding scale wher comm says getting so narrow where is public ben, down to 4 meber so fchurh e.g so muhht get to point pub lic ben goes down to much doesn texitst. So can have clas within clas bt how far, need to show rather dicr thing, can have locality trust but need to retain suffi el of publ ben within that. What there has to be lack is personal nexu btw indiiSo has to be lack of le- so 50,00 ot trusttes ot distib to employess of old company, that wouldn’t be charibtle because ther eis a connection peronsla nexus btw lass described allr elated certisn comp or indiv- cos that nexu sso suff public ben have to have lack of any such nexus. So can say suspicion of cross sectional benefit to public there. Oppenhiem case for aboveMust be no sugg of eprosnal nexus or small elite class benefiiting need ot show is benefit to suff corss section of public even with these locality trusts. Obv bigger and antional is more easier. U can have locality trust as long as there suff corss sectional pub ben within locaility
(ii) Benefit must be to sufficient section of the public- what happened in dingle v turner?
Dingle v Turner [1972]HL held exceptionally that a trust to relive poverty amongst poor employees of a company was a valid charitable trust. The HL relied on the long line of ‘poor relations’ cases. There was a general public benefit in relieving all forms of poverty.
(ii) Benefit must be to sufficient section of the public- dingle case in depth?
Dingel v turner r.a.w r.aw Idea even to clas of peiole, get round proble by saying genral ben to whole soc in reliving pv cos takes burden of su as taxpayers and welfare payment sit reduces their depdentasns of state which indirectly benefits all of usAnd genruall nice ting to doSo trust for relief o fpvo, pub ben deemd to be implied even if class of people are united by nexus to a family indiv or company. So pb test in relation to trust relif pov, does not eixts same way for other cpt. Trust for relief of needy relaitons, poor relatives, family memebs etc these would still be valid still 20011 nad still lieks s.4 bc deemed to be implied a genrall ben mamind of pub in seeing people lifted out of pov. So theyre issue public ben in that sensed, despite nexus and class so the law turns blind eye tot hat with pov cases. So are very muche xcept. Butebery other case pb must be psoitvely provon in 2 senses we been talking about
what cases also must been?
See also: IRC v Educational Grants Association Ltd [1967]- alck of a personal nexus is the personal rule Re Koettgen WT [1954]- so settlor specified preference to be givne I awarding these money to promote comm education as 75% of income should go to employers named com- clearly theres nex- courts said was cpt- cos 25% still able to benefit general public and that ws enough to satiosfy pub ben requirement.- quite controversial case cos vast maj income obvs pritiruse go to closed clas than general pub but court said 25/% was enogunt for cpt.Trust for promotion of commercial education amongst members of the public with a direction to trustees to give preference to families of employees of a named company as to 75% of the income. HL held trust charitable for sufficient public benefit.
Independent Schools- what about this?
Indepndant schools- lot of contro- schools not contorleld by state and people have to pay feePiitn charties law these schools have been inter subside by rest of us cos had charitable stuas haven’t paid much tax cos educational pa-.
Independent Schools- real debate on this?
Real debate – cpt to revaluate whether they should ahev chriabtle statis where the pub ben- cant afford ot fo why 95% don’t go there so why?Burdern ct Case 201- case said r.a.w
Independent Schools - further on debate for this?
A matter of long standing controversy has related to the satisfaction of the public benefit requirement by independent schools, about 7 per cent of the UK population attend paying on average £12,000 p/a. The Independent Schools Council v The Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421Held private schools provided for advanacement of education. Key question was whether they benefitted a sufficient section of the public. It was held test for public benefit was what a reasonable trustee acting in the interests of general community as a whole would do in all
Independent Schools - more on debate ?
the circumstances of the particular school and to consider what provision such a reasonable trustee would make for poor students above the token level including provision of partial scholarships and bursaries and remission of fees for those who become unable to pay their school fees. Once the level of benefit is above the minimum below which no reasonable trustee would go, the level and method of provision is for the trustees and not for the Charity Commission or the courts. Ultimately the question is for trustees is : has an independent school provided more than token public benefit.
Independent Schools - debate in other words on the more bit? previous 1
Provate schools now have 2 show more than nominal pb. Have to show us real and tangible pb to publicFacilites have to be shown to be avil to pub communityTke few should eb abolished or employed real political issueBut to retain charitable staus- have to prove that are proving real tangible benefits to local comma nd pub genrall scholarships bursiers , etc
Charitable Trusts must be ‘Exclusively Charitable’- what about this?
Purposes of the trust must be exclusively charitable not mixed. If mixed the gift might fail.Williams Trustees v. IRC [1947]Trust predominantly for valid educational purposes was held not charitable because another of its purposes, to provide for sport and recreation for Welsh people in London was not charitable. AthleticSee above: IRC v Glasgow Police Association
Charitable Trusts must be ‘Exclusively Charitable’- more on this 3rd hurdle?
3rd hurdle musr be EXLCUSIVLY CHARSo if we in will want to give 100,000 tot rustte toapply purpose of paying tuition fres of poor chil west midland s to be able to have violin lessons. 1 have to show purpose falls within 1 recognised head so charti-= educuaionsla 2nd suff pub ben-locality = west mid and 3rd have to show purpose elusive cy- need al 3 hurdlesHave to show satisfaction of comm that trust prupose is exlusively chartable. So if any suggestion that prupsoe of trust isn’t exclusively charitable its [aryl charitable but also mixed with private purpose, then trust will generally fail. Williams v trustees- r.aw.- non charti mixed with chairbtle bit stopped thing form being chartable – so gotta show purpose exclusively chartable, not mixed in with some other extraneous prupose
Charitable Trusts must be ‘Exclusively Charitable’- cases on this?
Blair v Duncan [1902]Gift for charitable or public purposes. Held not exclusively charitable.-Word or was the problem o’r meant gift could not be exclusively charitableRe Diplock [1948] Gift for charitable or benevolent purposes. Held not exclusively charitable therefore gift failed.- e.g gift to promot racial equal eng and wales , cant say chritble, public purpose but not a charible 1. again word or in diplcok was problematic. – beneovlet gift is not charible. Key for it to be charutbke nees to e in 1 of heads of charity.Re Bennet [1920]Gift to ‘charity or other public purpose’ held exclusively charitable. held exlcusibely char- ‘or ‘ didn’t stop gift here using word or can be problematic and caes tend t sugesst or either or it wilgernerally be consturd as disjunctive itnerp rarther than a conjunctive interp. Disjunctive meaning 2 sep tjings oens charitable one isn’t. word or isn’t good word t use cos will tend ot suggest that the purpose trust ur creating if u put this purpose or this sint exclusively chair.
further cases on this?
Blair v Duncan [1902]Gift to charitable and public purposes was held exclusively charitable and therefore valid.–word and is treated as conjunctive the former carries over the latter so if say charit and public purpose, saying that the gift was stil exclusively chartable. Chartible and public pruposes is all subsumed into idea of chairity Re Sutton [1885]Gift to charitable and deserving held exclusively charitable and valid.–gift their to trusttes to apply charitable and deserving purposeRe Best [1904]Gift to charitable and benevolent exclusively charitable and valid.–So word and is okay cos 2nd thing u list is consumed into the conept of chair but if use word or, word charity first dominates the sentence but if put or its this or that. Working out intention ofsettlor testator – or , charitable and Always like an act.. Diff btw twoSo whethere a trust survives as chairy or not can depend very carefully on wording which used in terms of gift. Its question of constuciton, like lot of trust law is. If trying to ascertain the true intneion of settlor or testair, did intent to make valuable charitable gift or not. Ct will try find way to make any cpt work. This and that = charib but or suggesting alternatives,
what happened in re coxen?
Re Coxen [1948]Gift of money to Aldermen of City of London for charitable purposes and also for their annual dinner. Valid charitable trust.Where inclusion of a non-charitable purpose is designed to facilitate the performance of the trust’s charitable purpose, the gift will still be treated as exclusively charitable.VALID CPT HERE
what happened in Salusbury v Denton [1857]?
Salusbury v Denton [1857]Where trust is framed in terms which enable the court to sever the non-charitable part of the fund from the charitable, and divide the fund into two : ‘equality is equity’. Here a fund was to be used to found a school or to provide for the poor and the remainder was to be used for the benefit of the testator’s relatives. Held fund was divisible between the charitable and non-charitable part 50 :50.
in other words in connection to salusbury?
Or must more like an axe, its disjunive but might be way to save trust in part. Ruing salusbry- use word or e..g million poind trusttes to use for charitable or other purpose u could say well word or means other purpose = not exlcusiveBut salsubur says can sever non chairbtle from charitable. Sever fund. Mill poun 500,000 charti purp and other non chartib p t- cant have unless re denly which fials resulting trust back – so where trust r.a.w above
