Charities Structure:

Intro = CA 2011
- s1(a) - Charity = an institution which is ‘established for charitable purposes only’
- s2(1) - charitable purpose definition = purpose which a) falls within s3(1) and b) is for public benefit
1) Recognised Charitable Purpose
- s3(1) = heads of charity
- Main three = 1) prevention and relief of poverty 2) the advancement of education 3) the
advancement of religion
2) Must be Public Benefit
a) Identifiable benefit
- Re Shaw [1957] - must benefit the community
- Balanced against any detriment/ harm from purpose = National Anti-Vivisection Society v
IRC [1948] - considered too political and would bring a detriment
- COMPARE: Re Foveaux [1895] = it stood neutral - for animal testing as well
b) To the public
- Re Scarisbrick [1951] - to the public or some section of it
- Personal Nexus rule - Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust [1951] - must not be linked
by contract or relationship to certain individuals.
3) Operate with Exclusively Charitable purposes
- CA 2011 s1(1)(a) - established for charitable purpose ONLY
- Cannot be mixture of charitable and non charitable e.g charitable OR benevolent = not
charitable
- If charitable and benevolent = Charitable = Re Best [1904]
- Must be clear in will that states and = Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance
Incorporated v Simpson [1944] - “charitable or benevolent objects” - not charitable
- Same as Re MacDuff [1896] - ‘charitable or other purposes’ - or implies other purposes will be
something other than charitable
- Re Atkinson’s Will Trust [1978] - must be clear gift made for charitable purposes
a) Incidental/ancillary purposes
- Re Coxen [1948] - ends must be exclusively charitable but if non-charitable
benefits means to such end it does not rid it of charitable status
b) Severance
- Exceptionally may be severed
- Salusbury v Denton (1857) - to found school or provide for poor, remainder to be
used for benefit of testator's relatives

Side Note: Political Purposes:

- Cannot be for political purposes - National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC [1948]
- COMPARE: Re Foveaux [1895] = it stood neutral - for animal testing as well
- If political objective merely incidental - not its main purpose can still be charitable

If Charitable Trust Fails:

Cy-Près Doctrine
- As near as possible
- Charitable trust fails = cy-près may apply
1) Ab initio (initial failure)
- Failure before trust commences
- General charitable intent must be established - for charitable purposes generally - not for
specific charity/purpose
 - Re Rymer (1895) - initial failure but not GCI = no cy-près
- Re Spence [1979] - “the specific displaces the general”
- Re Harwood [1936] - Belfast Peace Charity didn't exist - but general intention to benefit people
of Belfast with promotion of peace therefore there if GCI therefore can use cy-près.
2) Subsequent failure
- Failure occurs after trust commences
- Where subsequent failure May apply automatically - regardless of GCI - Re Wright [1954]
- Subsequent failure includes where purpose fulfilled but surplus remains - Re King [1923] -
£1000 for £700 church window
- GCI NOT NEEDED
s62 (1) CA 2011 - allows cy-près to alter purposes where:
(a) original purposes wholly/partly fulfilled or cannot be carried out/carried out according to spirit of the gift;
(b) original purposes provided use for only part of property
(c) property can be more usefully applied with other property applicable to similar purposes
(d) original purposes referred to now defunct unit (e.g.parish), or class of persons or area no longer suitable
(e) wholly/partly been adequately provided for by other means, ceased to be charitable in law, or ceased to
provide a suitable and effective method of using property
- C,d and e regard ‘appropriate considerations i.e. spirit of original gift + social & economic
circumstances

Charitable Purposes Structures

Poverty
1) Charitable purpose
- Re Coulthurst [1951] - Lord Evershed - Poverty = “persons who have to ‘go short’... due regard
being had to their status in life”
- Re Gardom [1914] - ladies of limited means - Eve J - “there are degrees of poverty less acute
than abject poverty or destitution, but poverty nonetheless”
- Re Sanders’ Will Trusts [1954] - dwellings for working classes = refused = no requirement for
people who received dwellings had to be poor
- COMPARE = Re Niyazi’s Will Trusts [1978] - trust for construction of a hostel for working men -
valid - working men ordinarily meant lower income - but borderline case
- 2013 Charity Commission guidance - prevention/relief of poverty not solely about financial
assistance
2) Must be public benefit
- Presumption abolished - s4(2) CA 2011
a) Identifiable benefit
b) To the public
- Re Segelman [1996] - poor relatives of testator
- Re Lucas [1922] - poor people in small area - parish/town
- Exempt from personal nexus rule!!! - Dingle v Turner [1972]
3) Exclusively Charitable
- To be exclusively poor - Re Gwyon [1930]

Advancement of Education
1) Charitable purpose
- ‘Improving and disseminating human knowledge’ - Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for
England and Wales v Attorney-General [1973] - Buckley LJ
 - Alternatively = “a balanced and systematic process of instruction, training and practice
containing… spiritual, moral, metal and physical elements” - per Lord Hailsham in IRC v
McMullen [1981]
- Trust for Research will apply if - Re Besterman’s Will Trusts (1980) - per Slade J
a) Subject matter of research useful subject of study
b) Knowledge acquired disseminated to others
- Re Hopkins’ WT [1965] - Research contesting authorship of shakespeare plays - valid = “of the highest
value to history and to literature”
- ICLR for E&W v Attorney-General [1972] - publication of law reports - failed - selling subscriptions

2) Must be public benefit

a) Identifiable benefit
- Re Shaw [1957] - Harman J - school for pickpockets or prostitutes would not be
charitable - exclude what considered harmful
- Re Pinion [1965] - paintings etc to display as a public museum - Harman J - “the
testator’s own paintings... are said by competent experts to be...‘atrociously
bad’...furniture and objects of so-called ‘art’...I can conceive of no useful object to be
served in foisting upon the public this mass of junk. It has neither public utility nor
educative value.”
b) To the public
- Personal nexus rule applies - Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [1951]
3) Exclusively charitable
- Political purposes fail!!
- Re Hopkinson [1949] - advancement of adult education reference to Labour party principles
- Southwood v Attorney-General (2000) - educating public about disarmament - sought to change
gov policy
- COMPARE: Re Koeppler’s ET [1986] - educate public in differing ways of securing peace and
avoiding war

Advancement of Religion
1) Charitable Purpose
- Advancement of religion = s3(1)(c) CA 2011
- Religion definiton: “It would seem… a trust for the purpose of any kind of monotheistic theism
would be a good” - per Lord Parker = Bowman v Secular Society [1917]
- EXPANDED IN:
- Religion definiton = (s3(2)(a) CA 2011) also include
- (i) involves belief in more than one god
- (ii) does not involve belief in a god
- Charity Commission 2013 Guidance - religion where:
(i) belief in supreme being or entity...which is the object or focus of religion;
- (ii) relationship between believer and supreme being or entity by showing worship, reverence, or
veneration;
- (iii) belief system which has certain level of cogency, coherence, seriousness, and importance;
AND
- (iv) promotion of identifiable, positive, beneficial, moral, or ethical framework
- Jediism failed - “entirely web-based”, “insufficient evidence that moral improvement is central to
beliefs and practices” and “not a sufficiently cogent and distinct religion”
 - Definition of Advancement of religion = taking positive steps to promote/spread religious beliefs
- Donovan J - United Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons fo E&W v Holborn
Borough Council [1957]
- Failed to establish advancement in United Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons
of England v Holborn Borough Council [1957] - although religion goal was not to advance
religion threfore purposes not chairtable under s3(1)(c)
2) Must be Public Benefit
- Some benefit from advancement
- Must engage with community - Gilmour v Coats [1949]
- COMPARE = Re Hetherington [1990] - A religious rite in public does confer a sufficient public
benefit because of the edifying and improving effect of such celebration on the members of the
public who attend: citing Lord Reid in Gilmour on religious services
3) Exclusively Charitable