Charitable Trust
exception to rule that can only be valid for human objects
Statute of Charitable Uses 1634
Cy-Pres Doctrine
Charities Act 2009
regarded as chartiable by law
case law
Scottish Burial Reform Society look at spirit and intention of legislator
Commissioner Income Tax v Pensel popular meanings of words charity or charitable don't coincide with legal meaning
preamble repealed but not replaced by anything
Charities Act 2009
s3(1) classification of charitable trust into 4 categories (similar to Pensel)
advancement of education
Advancement of religion
prevention or relief of poverty or economic hardship
any other purpose that is of benefit to the community
s3(2) gift be of public benefit
s3(3) provides more flexibility 0 if intended to benefit public or section of the public
s3(7) factors to be considered
any limitation imposed on who may benefit, amount of any charge payable for service
3(8) limitation can't be justified if all parties to benefit have personal connection
3(11) lists examples of whats beneficial to community - final decision still rests with court
Advantage
Cy-Pres Doctrine
fiscal advantages
don't need to be limited in perpetuity
objects don't have to be human or certain
development
categories
advancement of religion
advancement of education
charitable purposes for benefit of community
prevention of poverty or hardship
political trusts
C.I.T. v Pemsel (Lord MacNaghten) created classifications, poverty,advancement of education, advancement of religion, common good
Incorporated Council of Law v AG donors express intention not decisive - publishing law reports charitable (advancement of educaiton)
Howley's Estate charities in law an artificial concept, strayed from realm of common sense
Re King motive not important (trust for stain glass in church as memorial to donor charitable)
s3 (11) provides non-exhautive list
English approach
Pinion works of art described as worthless no public benefit
Coulthurst doesn't have to be destitute, satisfied if person has to go short
generally not charitable
Lucas gift to oldest respectable inhabitant in town - implied charitable
public benefit
pre 2009 not as significant
Compton gift for beneficiaries with purely personal relationship cannot be charitable - personal nexus test
exception developed
Delany for poor relations and poor employees
Scarisbrick trust benefiting relations under relief of poverty deserve separate treatment
Dingle v Turner extended to benefit of poor employees
Denison to employees wives and children
unlikely to be the case as don't meet public benefit requirement under 2009 act - s3
In England likely still exists - AG v Charity Commission England and Wales
Irish Approach
Delius trust to promote work of composer was advancement
religion can be difficulty to define
sports
Davies trust for benefit of presybiterians, from northern ireland in new south wales- too restrictive
IRC v McMullen FA set up trust for schools to facilitate football - charitable as promoting physical education as part of education
Mariette gift for squash courts at Eton was charitable
Nottage trust for winner of yacht race not charitable can't be just sport
Dupree trust for chess tournament valid as educational
Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission must provide public benefit over and above educating their students - sharing facilities may be sufficient
personal nexus test
stricter in education than poverty
Oppenheim v Tobacco benefit must not be based on relationship with settlor
Worth Library library left for 3 named office holders in hospital - not charitable as confined to office holders
objective
subjective
Cocks v Manners gifts to contemplative orders non-charitable as never going out to public
Maguire praying is good for society - public benefit
1961 charities act- apply the rules of the religion in question
Simson gift to priest for work in parish was charitable
Gilmour prayers don't carry public benefit
United Grand Lodge freemasonry not accepted (more like a cult)
Southplace gift to promote spiritualism did not advance religion
cult s3(10) principle object of making profit or psycholgical manipulation of its followers or for purpose of gaining new followers
1961 act - s49 - can sever a bit if non-charitable
need to show public dimension and beneficial to the community
English Approach
objective
Irish Approach
subjective
Hummeltenberg donated property for purpose of spiritual media training and education - decision based on courts opinion
Robinson gift for elderly people over 60 allowed - within spirit of preamble
Cranston view of donor should be decisive
animals
Wedgewood trust for more humane ways of slaughtering animals charitable - not for specific animals
animals- Grove Grady not charitable as not in interests of man or public benefit
Barrinton presence of limited number of fee paying patients, did not make it uncharitable
*Goodman v Salatash *gift benefiting inhabitants of town or parish charitable
National tourism development v McLouglhan trust object of maintaining 3 golf courses for tourism - only maybe under 4th category - sport by itself not charitable - golf clubs private - need exceptional circumstance for it to be charitable
Goff v Guhry trust for Fianna Fail non charitable
Trust of Arthur McDougal teaching policital theory charitable
Amnesty non-charitable as trying to change foreign government's policy
Bushnell sum for advancement of socialist medicine not charitable due to political element
s2 2009 act names political parties as can't be charitable
difficulties in defining what is a charitable purpose
main difference in Charities act is including economic hardship and preventing
under the categories of Pemsel varied between categories
2009 act s3(4) presume of public benefit
s49 Charities Act 1961 - Irish courts can exclude non-charitable parts of a trust and give effect to charitable parts
exception if promotes political objectives which relate directly to advancement of charitable purpose
Amateur Youth Soccer Assocation Canadian SC recent case- if purely for playing soccer - won't be charitable
difference between giving it to religious person to spend on themselves vs someone who uses to build church
oppenheim v tobacco securities person nexus test, public benefit