Charities

?
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 23-02-17 10:32
Law Com, “Social Investment by Charities (2014)
“Charities occupy a special place in society and in law. They exist for the benefit of the public and they must have exclusively charitable purposes”
1 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(a)
Prevention or relief of poverty
2 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(b)
Advancement of education
3 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(c)
Advancement of religion
4 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(d)
Advancement of health or the saving of lives; including prevention of or relief of sickness, disease or human suffering
5 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(e)
Advancement of citizenship or community development; including rural or urban regeneration and the promotion of civic responsibility, volunteering, the voluntary sector or the effectiveness or efficiency of charities
6 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(f)
Advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
7 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(g)
Advancement of amateur sport; sport=sport or games which promote health by involving physical or mental skill or exertion (CA 2011, s 3(2)(d))
8 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(h)
Advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
9 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(i)
Advancement of environmental protection or improvement
10 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(j)
Relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadv; including relief given by the provision of accommodation or care to such persons (CA 2011, s 3(2)(e))
11 of 87
Helena Partnerships Ltd v HMRC (2012)
mere provision of housing accommodation, otherwise than for those in some relevant charitable need is not a charitable purpose
12 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(k)
Advancement of animal welfare
13 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(l)
Promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
14 of 87
CA 2011, s 3(1)(m)
o Other purposes currently recognised as charitable and any new charitable purpose which is reasonably analogous to another charitable purpose; including, e.g. promoting sound administration of the law (Human Dignity Trust (2014))
15 of 87
CA 2011, s 4(1)
To be charitable, the s 3(1) purpose must be for public benefit
16 of 87
Re John Duffy (2013)
o held: a gift for benefit of no more than 33 residents at a particular care home could not be regarded as a gift to a sufficient secti90on or class of the community as to meet the public benefit requirement
17 of 87
CA 2011, s 4(2)
In determining whether there is a public benefit, it is not to be presumed that a purpose of a particular description is automatically for the public benefit
18 of 87
CA 2011, s 17
Charity Commission is obliged to publish guidance from time to time providing its interpretation of what will satisfy the public benefit requirement
19 of 87
CA 2011, s 1(1)(a)
The property must be capable of dedication to charitable purposes only
20 of 87
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)
Where a gift is given for a no of specific purposes it will not be a valid charitable trust unless all the purposes are charitable; here, a gift for “benevolent purposes” held not exclusively charitable as some benevolent purposes are not charitable
21 of 87
Re Ward (1941)
The word “or” imports an alternative and is said to be disjunctive
22 of 87
Farley v Westminster Bank (1939)
o Here, a gift made to a vicar for “parish work”; charitable nature of gift challenged as not exclusively charitable; held: not exclusively charitable; phrase “parish work” = too wide and not directly linked to the religious office; possibility was t
23 of 87
Re Simson (1946)
gift to named vicar for “his work in the parish” challenged as not exclusively charitable; held: gift was suff’y limited to his religious function and was exclusively charitable
24 of 87
Re Best (1904)
Held: “charitable and benevolent” = exclusively charitable; although “benevolent” is open to a non-charitable meaning, the words were linked to an overt charitable purpose by the use of the word “and”
25 of 87
Re Eades (1920)
• Presence or absence of punctuation may be important; here, references made to “religious, charitable and philanthropic” purposes; use of comma after “religious” indicated that each class was separate and disjunctive and, thus, it was not exclusivel
26 of 87
Salusbury v Denton (1857)
In default of apportionment, the court will divide the fund equally and the trust will be valid as to the charitable half
27 of 87
Re Coxen (1948)
Here, fact that testator directed that £100 of a charitable fund of £200,000 could be used for a dinner for the trustees did not stop the trust from being exclusively charitable; the non-charitable aspect was merely ancillary to the main charitable p
28 of 87
Moggridge v Thackwell (1803)
testatrix left property to her trustee to divide, as he saw fit, between charities; trustee predeceased testatrix; courts upheld trust; devised scheme as to how the money was to be distributed
29 of 87
Christ’s Hospital v Grainger (1849)
Although a gift to charity must vest within the perpetuity period, a gift over from one charity to another can occur outside the perpetuity period
30 of 87
Re Coulthurst (1951)
Not limited to destitution; here, it was equated with persons who have to “go short”; a gift to be applied for widows and orphaned children of deceased employees of a particular bank upheld as charitable
31 of 87
Garfield Poverty Trust (1995)
Held: those who could not afford to take on a mortgage on the usual commercial terms could be classified as being “poor” and, hence, the provision of interest free loans to buy houses was charitable
32 of 87
Re Scarisbrick (1951)
Not nec that words “poverty” and “poor” be employed; e.g. here, expression “in needy circum’s” indicated poverty
33 of 87
Re Gardom (1914)
Here, expression “of limited means” was sufficient
34 of 87
Re Cohen (1919)
However, term “deserving” did not connote a sufficient need and was not charitable
35 of 87
Biscoe v Jackson (1887)
Poverty may also be inferred from nature of gift; e.g. here, provision of a soup kitchen qualified under head of poverty
36 of 87
Re Gosling (1900)
Here, provision of a superannuation fund for “pensioning off old worn out clerks” was viewed as being implicitly for relief of poverty
37 of 87
Re Niyazi (1978)
Borderline example: here, construction of a working men’s hostel in Cyprus was held charitable; the conjunction of the concept of working men and hostel accommodation influenced the court
38 of 87
Isaac v Defriez (1754)
Thus, a trust for a testator’s poor relations is charitable
39 of 87
Re Gosling (1900)
Here, poor employees were permitted to benefit
40 of 87
Re Scarisbrick (1951)
CA: a trust for relief of poverty would not be charitable if the poor persons to benefit were members of a narrow class of close family
41 of 87
Re Segelman (1996)
Chadwick J: gift could not be charitable if it was in essence a gift to the ind members of the class; however, this gift was not of that character; the selection of named beneficiaries focused on need and not mere closeness of relationship; this is a
42 of 87
Attorney General v Charity Commission (2012)
Upper Tribunal: benevolent funds and trusts for relief of poverty of restricted groups of ind’s continue to be charitable and satisfy the statutory public benefit test
43 of 87
Re Gwyon (1930)
A trust will not be for relief of poverty if it can benefit the rich as well as the poor; here, a trust to est a clothing foundation to provide clothing to boys in Farnham floundered because if failed to exclude more affluent children; demonstrates t
44 of 87
Re Shaw (1957)
settlor directed trustees to use his residuary estate for a no of specified purposes; included devising a new 40-letter alphabet and translation of some of plays into that new alphabet; held: not charitable; there was “no new element of teaching or e
45 of 87
Re Hopkin’s Will Trust (1965)
Wilberforce J: research can be regarded as charitable when it is worthwhile (unlike in Re Shaw) and will lead to something which will pass into the store of educational material
46 of 87
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v Attorney General (1972)
Here, the preparation of law reports held charitable
47 of 87
Re Delius (1957)
Here, wife of composer Delius gave her residuary estate for advancement of her late husband’s work; held: charitable because trust was to spread knowledge and appreciation of Delius’ work throughout world
48 of 87
Re Pinion (1965)
artist left his studio and its contents to trustees to enable it to be used as a museum to display his collection of works; Harman LJ: “I can see no useful object to be served in foisting upon the public this mass of junk. It has neither public utili
49 of 87
Re Marriette (1915)
Here, there was a valid charitable trust to provide squash courts at Aldenham School and a prize for athletics
50 of 87
IRC v McMullen (1981)
Nevertheless, the sporting facilities do not nec’y have to be at a particular school; here, a trust to provide facilities for soccer at schools and uni’s in UK held to assist the physical education and development of the young
51 of 87
British Humanist Association v Richmond LBC (2012)
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster sought to est voluntary aided Catholic primary and secondary schools; held: charitable because the schools were desirable, although there was no “need” for them
52 of 87
ISC v The Charity Commission (2011)
Re fee-paying schools, it is for the school and not Charity Commission to determine measures it must take to demonstrate public benefit; may include provision of bursaries to children who cannot afford the fees, but also may include making available
53 of 87
Re Compton (1945)
a trust providing for education of descendants of 3 named persons was not a valid charitable trust; as the beneficiaries were defined by ref to a personal relationship, the trust lacked any public element
54 of 87
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd (1951)
blood and contract rule;held: even with these large numbers, the personal nexus between the employers and employees meant there was not a suff’t public benefit
55 of 87
Re Koettgen’s Will Trust (1954)
held: trust was primarily for the public, a mere pref being given to employee’s families; decision appears to undermine policy underlying blood and contract rule
56 of 87
IRC v Educational Grants Association Ltd (1967)
However, a trust to advance education was set up by the Metal Box Company; evidence showed that over 80% of payments went towards education of children connected to the company; re those payments, trust was held not to be charitable
57 of 87
Southwood v Attorney General (2000)
Project on demilitarisation based at Bradford Uni failed as the political dimension of the trust prevented it being exclusively educational in nature; it was political propaganda and thus not in public interest
58 of 87
Re Hopkinson (1949)
Here, a trust to educate public in aims of a political party (Labour) could not be charitable as it amounted to political propaganda and was not exclusively educational
59 of 87
Attorney General v Ross (1986)
However, here, a gift to London Polytechnic Students Union was charitable even though it had ancillary non-charitable purposes (e.g. providing shops and a bar)
60 of 87
Neville Estates v Madden (1962)
Law draws no distinction between one religion and another and adopts view that any religion os better than none; Courts feel ill-equipped to make value judgements on inherent benefit of particular religious beliefs (Holmes v A-G (1981))
61 of 87
Thornton v Howe (1862)
E.g. here, a trust for publication of the works of Joanna Southcote held charitable; she claimed she had been impregnated by the Holy Ghost and would give birth to the second Messiah
62 of 87
Re South Place Ethical Society (1980)
Dillon J: “Religion is concerned with man’s relations with God and ethics are concerned with man’s relations with man”
63 of 87
Power, Praise and Healing Mission (1976)
However, here, a trust for advancement of religion by means including exorcism was granted charitable status
64 of 87
R v Registrar General of Births, Deaths & Marriages (2014)
SC: described religion as a spiritual or non-secular belief system which claimed to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite; it teaches its adherents how to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understa
65 of 87
Gilmour v Coates (1949)
Carmelites are a contemplative order who do not venture outside convent walls; held: prayer and spiritual belief alone were of no tangible benefit to the public
66 of 87
Society of the Precious Blood (1995)
here, Anglican nuns held to be charitable; these nuns were not cut off from the outside world; they worked in the community and provided classes and talks
67 of 87
Preston Down Trust (2014)
Charity Commission: would allow Brethren church to register for charitable status; there was a clear statement of doctrine and evidence of faith in practice; on balance, benefit to public outweighed any detriment and harm from the doctrine and practi
68 of 87
Neville Estates v Madden (1962)
Provision of a retreat house may be charitable if it is open to the public, on basis that ind’s taking adv of such services then mix with their fellow citizens
69 of 87
Re Hetherington (1990)
A gift for masses for the dead has been held to have sufficient public benefit when the mass is part of a public ritual
70 of 87
Thompson v Pritcher (1815)
A gift to maintain an ind tomb lacks public benefit, but the maintenance of all the tombs in a churchyard is charitable
71 of 87
Re Rumball (1956) (a bishop)
e.g. if the gift is limited to the office of a priest or vicar, it will be deemed to be exclusively charitable
72 of 87
Re Family Planning Association (1969)
Advancement of health or saving of lives: e.g. provision of health care advice
73 of 87
Re Scowcroft (1862)
Advancement of citizenship or community development: e.g. promotion of moral improvement
74 of 87
Royal College of Surgeons of England v National Provincial Bank (1952)
Advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science: e.g. promoting the National Trust or, the advancement of science
75 of 87
Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust Housing Association v Attorney General (1983)
 The relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health etc: e.g. provision of housing for the elderly; or provision of children’s care homes and orphanages (D v NSPCC (1978))
76 of 87
Human Dignity Trust v Charity Commission (2014)
held: a company, which had been est’d to support inds whose human rights had been violated by helping them to litigate, interpret and enforce those rights, did not have a political purpose preventing it from being reg’d as a charitable organisation
77 of 87
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC (1948)
anti-vivisection; held: moral benefit resulting to mankind was outweighed by the detriment that would be suffered by medical research if experiments were not allowed on live animals; case failed also because it had a political element
78 of 87
McGovern v Attorney General (1982)
If there is an aim to change the law, to promote a particular political party or theory or to seek to change govt’l policy either here or abroad it is not charitable
79 of 87
Bowman v Secular Society (1917)
Traditional reasoning: court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit
80 of 87
CA 2011, s 4(5)
2011 Act applies in particular to provision of facilities at village halls, community centres and women’s institutes as well as the provision and maintenance of grounds and buildings to be used for purposes of recreation and leisure
81 of 87
CA 2011, s 5(3)
Facilities must be provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended
82 of 87
CA 2011, s 5(1)
It is charitable to provide, or assist in the provision of facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation, if the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare
83 of 87
IRC v Baddeley (1955)
HL: this was not of sufficient public benefit; distinction between benefit that is extended to whole community (even though advantageous only to a few) and relief accorded to a selected few out of a larger number
84 of 87
Pemsel’s Case (1891)
Unlike first three statutory descriptions (** 3(1)(a-c)), remaining descriptions gained charitable status be being “otherwise beneficial to the community”
85 of 87
Re Wedgewood (1915)
 Advancement of animal welfare: (trusts for protection of animals generally will be upheld if they promote and encourage human kindness; however Re Grove-Grady (1929)
86 of 87
Re Wokingham Fire Brigade Trusts (1951)
 Promotion of efficiency of armed forces or emergency services: e.g. a gift for a Fire Brigade; here, bequest to Chancellor of the Exchequer for “benefit and adv of my beloved country Great Britain” was charitable (Nightingale v Goulbourn (1848))
87 of 87

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Prevention or relief of poverty

Back

CA 2011, s 3(1)(a)

Card 3

Front

Advancement of education

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Advancement of religion

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Advancement of health or the saving of lives; including prevention of or relief of sickness, disease or human suffering

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Equity & Trusts resources »