THE BENEFICIARY PRINCIPLE
The beneficiary principle dictates that the trust must be for identifiable, ascertainable human
beneficiaries
Generally, trusts for ‘private’ purposes will be void or valid but unenforceable, except for legally
recognised charitable trusts for public benefit
‘A trust to be valid must be for the benefit of individuals... or must be in that class of gifts for the
benefit of the public which the courts in this country recognise as charitable in the legal as
opposed to the popular sense of that term’ (Bowman v Secular Society [1917])
Thereby excludes pets
Rationale of practicality in terms of certainty of enforcement/control (Morice v Bishop of Durham
[1804]) and certainty of purpose (Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952])
However, Re Astor’s recognised ‘a group of cases relating to horses and dogs, graves and
monuments- matters arising under wills and intimately connected with the deceased- in
which the courts have found means of escape from these general propositions’
However, there are cases where the courts have given effect to trusts or provisions for a
purpose rather than identified individuals
Some jurisdictions have relaxed the requirements for a human beneficiary on the
grounds of an enforcer principle
The settlor in Re Endacott [1960] sought to create a provision for ‘some useful memorial to
myself’
Rejected extending trusts of imperfect obligation (Re Astor’s) to building a monument for
oneself
However, Re Endacott accepted that the courts have been willing to make some exceptions (Re
Astor’s)
Trusts for the care and maintenance of specific animals (Re Dean [1889]- sought to leave
£750p/a for the maintenance of his horse and hounds in a private capacity, drawing an
analogy to a public charity for the same purpose (although failed on perpetuity rule))
Trusts to erect and maintain monuments and graves, provided the perpetuity rule is
satisfied (only valid for 21 years after death, Re Hooper [1932])
Trusts for the saying of private masses, satisfying the perpetuity rule (life + 21 years,
Bourne v Keane [1919])
However, Brown has questioned how trusts of imperfect obligation can be properly
enforced as ‘prima facie the trustee cannot be compelled to perform the same as there is
no one in whose favour the court can decree performance’, although ‘conversely, the
trustee cannot be prevented from performing the trust and will be able to make
unimpeachable use of the money in applying it for one of the accepted purposes’
Pettingall v Pettingall [1842]- if the trustee wants to give the money out, he is entitled to,
but this may be constrained by the courts if he does not do so for the stated purpose
The court has also, in rare instances, found a valid trust for a purpose on the basis that it is
possible to construe that purpose as directly or indirectly benefitting identifiable persons
Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] sought to create a trust for the maintenance and use of a
recreation or sports ground, primarily for the benefit of employees and secondarily for
the benefit of such other persons
A trust does not have to have clearly identified, specific and named beneficiaries and it
may be valid as long as the individuals who benefit (the employees) have a direct or
indirect interest, the trust will be able to be enforced
The beneficiary principle dictates that the trust must be for identifiable, ascertainable human
beneficiaries
Generally, trusts for ‘private’ purposes will be void or valid but unenforceable, except for legally
recognised charitable trusts for public benefit
‘A trust to be valid must be for the benefit of individuals... or must be in that class of gifts for the
benefit of the public which the courts in this country recognise as charitable in the legal as
opposed to the popular sense of that term’ (Bowman v Secular Society [1917])
Thereby excludes pets
Rationale of practicality in terms of certainty of enforcement/control (Morice v Bishop of Durham
[1804]) and certainty of purpose (Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952])
However, Re Astor’s recognised ‘a group of cases relating to horses and dogs, graves and
monuments- matters arising under wills and intimately connected with the deceased- in
which the courts have found means of escape from these general propositions’
However, there are cases where the courts have given effect to trusts or provisions for a
purpose rather than identified individuals
Some jurisdictions have relaxed the requirements for a human beneficiary on the
grounds of an enforcer principle
The settlor in Re Endacott [1960] sought to create a provision for ‘some useful memorial to
myself’
Rejected extending trusts of imperfect obligation (Re Astor’s) to building a monument for
oneself
However, Re Endacott accepted that the courts have been willing to make some exceptions (Re
Astor’s)
Trusts for the care and maintenance of specific animals (Re Dean [1889]- sought to leave
£750p/a for the maintenance of his horse and hounds in a private capacity, drawing an
analogy to a public charity for the same purpose (although failed on perpetuity rule))
Trusts to erect and maintain monuments and graves, provided the perpetuity rule is
satisfied (only valid for 21 years after death, Re Hooper [1932])
Trusts for the saying of private masses, satisfying the perpetuity rule (life + 21 years,
Bourne v Keane [1919])
However, Brown has questioned how trusts of imperfect obligation can be properly
enforced as ‘prima facie the trustee cannot be compelled to perform the same as there is
no one in whose favour the court can decree performance’, although ‘conversely, the
trustee cannot be prevented from performing the trust and will be able to make
unimpeachable use of the money in applying it for one of the accepted purposes’
Pettingall v Pettingall [1842]- if the trustee wants to give the money out, he is entitled to,
but this may be constrained by the courts if he does not do so for the stated purpose
The court has also, in rare instances, found a valid trust for a purpose on the basis that it is
possible to construe that purpose as directly or indirectly benefitting identifiable persons
Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] sought to create a trust for the maintenance and use of a
recreation or sports ground, primarily for the benefit of employees and secondarily for
the benefit of such other persons
A trust does not have to have clearly identified, specific and named beneficiaries and it
may be valid as long as the individuals who benefit (the employees) have a direct or
indirect interest, the trust will be able to be enforced
