Charitable Trusts
**-For a charitable trust to exist there must be:
1) A charitable purpose.
2) A public benefit; and is
3) Wholly and exclusively charitable.
1) Charitable Purpose
*-History of charitable purposes stems from the case below:
Commissioners of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891]: The heads of charity were reformulated by
Lord Macnaghten: “Charity in its legal sense comprises four principles:
1) Trusts for relief of poverty
2) Trusts for the advancement of education
3) Trusts for the advancement of religion
4) Trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the
preceding heads.”
*-However, charitable purposes have been expanded to include other purposes contained in
s.3(1) Charities Act 2011:
*s.3(1) Charities Act 2011: “A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the
following descriptions of purposes—
(a) the 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;
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development;
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
(g) the advancement of amateur sport;
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of
religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
(j) the relief of those in need because 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 of the efficiency of
the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;
*Note: First thing to do in an essay is to discuss whether there is a charitable purpose.
Sometimes there can be more than one charitable purpose.
a) Prevention or Relief of Poverty (s.3(1)(a) CA 2011)
1) Meaning of poverty in charity law
*Re Coulthurst [1951]: Lord Evershed MR: Poverty doesn’t mean destitution. It is not an
absolute thing, but a relative thing.
, 2) Application of the meaning of poverty in charity law
Re Niyazi’s Will Trusts [1978]: A gift was left as a contribution to the cost of building “a
working men’s hostel”.
Held (Legal Principle): This was charitable, even though there was no express limitation to
those who were poor as the words “working men” and “hostel” indicated those with a low
income.
Re Sanders WT (1954): Working class of itself did not equate to poverty.
b) Advancement of Education (s.3(1)(b) CA 2011)
1) Research
**-Re Hopkins’ Will Trust [1965]: Held that education must be used in a wide sense and
extends beyond teaching to include research. This was expanded in:
McGovern v A-G [1982]: A trust for research will ordinarily qualify as a charitable trust if,
but only if:
a) The subject matter of the proposed research is a useful subject of study
b) It is contemplated that knowledge acquired as a result of the research will be
disseminated to others.
c) The trust is for the benefit of the public.
2) Artistic and Aesthetic Education
*-Can fall under education or s.3(1)(f) CA 2011.
Re Delius [1957]: There was a trust to promote broader public understanding of composer
Delius.
Held (Legal Principle): Valid charitable trust as the work was regarded widely as being of
high quality and cultural standard.
3) Physical Education
*-Note: relevance now to s.3(1)(g) CA 2011.
IRC v McMullen [1981]: Playing football at schools was considered for the benefit of
education.
4) Publishing Law Reports
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v Attorney General [1972]: The Council sought
charitable status for its activities of reporting the law.
Held (Legal Principle): The Council should have charitable status.
c) The Advancement of Religion (s.3(1)(c) CA 2011)
*-Originally, charitable trusts for the advancement of religion use to be limited to faith in god
in a monotheistic (one god rather than many- i.e. Christianity, Judaism) sense.
**-For a charitable trust to exist there must be:
1) A charitable purpose.
2) A public benefit; and is
3) Wholly and exclusively charitable.
1) Charitable Purpose
*-History of charitable purposes stems from the case below:
Commissioners of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891]: The heads of charity were reformulated by
Lord Macnaghten: “Charity in its legal sense comprises four principles:
1) Trusts for relief of poverty
2) Trusts for the advancement of education
3) Trusts for the advancement of religion
4) Trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the
preceding heads.”
*-However, charitable purposes have been expanded to include other purposes contained in
s.3(1) Charities Act 2011:
*s.3(1) Charities Act 2011: “A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the
following descriptions of purposes—
(a) the 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;
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development;
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
(g) the advancement of amateur sport;
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of
religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
(j) the relief of those in need because 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 of the efficiency of
the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;
*Note: First thing to do in an essay is to discuss whether there is a charitable purpose.
Sometimes there can be more than one charitable purpose.
a) Prevention or Relief of Poverty (s.3(1)(a) CA 2011)
1) Meaning of poverty in charity law
*Re Coulthurst [1951]: Lord Evershed MR: Poverty doesn’t mean destitution. It is not an
absolute thing, but a relative thing.
, 2) Application of the meaning of poverty in charity law
Re Niyazi’s Will Trusts [1978]: A gift was left as a contribution to the cost of building “a
working men’s hostel”.
Held (Legal Principle): This was charitable, even though there was no express limitation to
those who were poor as the words “working men” and “hostel” indicated those with a low
income.
Re Sanders WT (1954): Working class of itself did not equate to poverty.
b) Advancement of Education (s.3(1)(b) CA 2011)
1) Research
**-Re Hopkins’ Will Trust [1965]: Held that education must be used in a wide sense and
extends beyond teaching to include research. This was expanded in:
McGovern v A-G [1982]: A trust for research will ordinarily qualify as a charitable trust if,
but only if:
a) The subject matter of the proposed research is a useful subject of study
b) It is contemplated that knowledge acquired as a result of the research will be
disseminated to others.
c) The trust is for the benefit of the public.
2) Artistic and Aesthetic Education
*-Can fall under education or s.3(1)(f) CA 2011.
Re Delius [1957]: There was a trust to promote broader public understanding of composer
Delius.
Held (Legal Principle): Valid charitable trust as the work was regarded widely as being of
high quality and cultural standard.
3) Physical Education
*-Note: relevance now to s.3(1)(g) CA 2011.
IRC v McMullen [1981]: Playing football at schools was considered for the benefit of
education.
4) Publishing Law Reports
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting v Attorney General [1972]: The Council sought
charitable status for its activities of reporting the law.
Held (Legal Principle): The Council should have charitable status.
c) The Advancement of Religion (s.3(1)(c) CA 2011)
*-Originally, charitable trusts for the advancement of religion use to be limited to faith in god
in a monotheistic (one god rather than many- i.e. Christianity, Judaism) sense.
