- Created by: cephillips
- Created on: 22-04-17 18:20
Section 3(1a) – Charities for Relief or Prevention
Re Coulthurst  – wide definition of poverty, including those who might “go short”.
Re Sanders  – “working classes” is not indicative of poverty.
Re Niyazi WT  – Purpose trust (hostel construction) for working class allowed.
AG v Charity Commission  – more relaxed definition of public benefit than normal allowed.
Re Scarisbrick  – allowed “needy relations” of settlor children under public benefit.
Dingle v Turner  – poor employee trust allowed under public benefit (as aimed to relieve poverty among a particular description of poor people).
Re Segalman  – controversially allowed a trust for “poor and needy” relations
Re Gwyon  – trust for knickers for boys in a certain place not allowed as it did not exclusively help poor.
Section 3(1b) - Charities for Advancement of Educa
IRC v McMullen  – education defined as “the picture of a balanced and systematic process of instruction, training and practice containing… spiritual, moral, mental and physical elements”. Thus allowed sports as education if linked to the young.
Examples: 1. Re Lopes – London Zoo 2. Re Dupree – Chess tournament for youths 3. Re Hopkins – research into contested authorship of Shakespeare works 4. Re Bestermans WT  – research allowed if subject matter is a useful subject of study and knowledge will be disseminated to others.
Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission  – two senses of public benefit for educational trusts:
i. Nature of purpose must be a benefit
ii. Those who benefit must be sufficiently numerous to constitute a section of the public
Re Koettgen  – preference for a private class of individuals in charitable purposes allowed. Criticised in IRC v Educational Grants Association .
Section 3 (1c) Charities for the Advancement of Re
Neville Estates v Madden  – neutral stance between different religions but assumes some religion better than none.
Funnell  – court will not discriminate against religion with small number of followers
S3 (2) CA 2011 includes multiple deities and no deity but still requires worship.
Section 3 (1d) - 1(h)
1. Section 3 (1d) – Health – private hospital can be charitable but not profit making – Re Resch 
2. Section 3 (1e) – advancement of citizenship or community development
3. Section 3 (1f) – arts, culture, heritage, science – Re Dlius  Composer Case, Royal Choral Soc , Re Pinion  did not allow “pile of junk” as art.
4. Section 3 (1g) – amateur sport
5. Section 3 (1h) – promotion of human rights, conflict resolution, racial harmony, equality or diversity – cannot be a political trust McGovern v AG  (e.g changing the law, particular political party, influence government policy).
Section 3 (1i) - 1(m)
1. Section 3 (1i) – environmental protection
2. Section 3 (1j) – relief of those…[disadvantaged]
3. Section 3 (1k) – Animal Welfare – Re Wedgewood  also enhance morality and make us better people
4. Section 3 (1l) - efficiency of army, police etc -
5. Section 3 (1m) – other purposes (regarded as being in the spirit of the 12 heads, or Section 5 areas, or those areas falling under charity law).
Alteration of the Original Charitable Purpose - S6
The CA 2011 relaxed the requirements of impracticability and impossibility for cy-pres. Section 62 enables the original purposes of the gift to be altered where:
1. Original purpose have been wholly or partially fulfilled or cannot be carried out according to the directions given and the spirit of the gift
2. Where the OP provides only a partial use of the property given.
3. Where the property given/property given for similar purpose can be used more effectively together for common purposes.
4. Where the OP referred to an area which has ceased to be a unit
5. Where the OP has been wholly or partially: a. Provided for by other means b. Ceased to be charitable in law c. Ceased to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property
The references to appropriate considerations in paras 3, 4 and 5c refer to the spirit of the relevant gift and the social and economic circumstances that prevail at the time of the proposed alteration of the OP.