Case Quotes/ Judgment Significance/ Analysis
Charitable trusts
Oppenheim v The relevant trust was to apply income in providing for the education of children of employees or former
Tobacco employees of certain companies.
Securities This was a personal nexus linking the beneficiaries of the trust to the settlor and thus rendered the trust void
Trust Co Ltd as it was non-charitable.
[1951] Lord Simonds
Although the nature of the purpose (advancement of education) was beneficial, the employment
nexus rendered it private rather than public – the class of beneficiaries did not constitute a
sufficient section of the public.
Lord Normand and Lord Morton
Approval of the Compton principle: no class of beneficiaries can constitute a section of the public
for the purpose of the law of charity if the distinguishing quality which links them together is
relationship to a particular individual either through common descent or through common
employment.
Because those personal relationships are by nature non-public, the beneficiaries would be private
individuals instead of section of the community.
Testamentary trust of imperfect obligation
Pirbright v A trust for the care and upkeep of family graves and monuments was held to be valid for 21 years only.
Salwey [1896] It was held that, after the end of the perpetuity period, any surplus money should be given to whoever was
entitled to the reside of the estate.
Re Endacott The testator in this case had left his estate to a parish council to provide ‘some useful memorial’ to It is important in the assessment to make
[1960] himself. This was construed to be a trust for a non-charitable purpose trust that was not valid, even sure that the TIO fits the established
though it might be regarded as analogous to trusts to erect and maintain monuments and graves. categories, e.g. a statute may not be the
The cases of a TIO should not be extended. same as a monument or grave and thus may
be void.
Non-charitable purpose trusts
R v Denley Denley creates an exception to the beneficiary rule in non-charitable purpose trusts:
[1969] 1 Ch This quote demonstrates why the
373 Goff J Ratio ‘there may be a purpose or object trust, the carrying *383 out of which would benefit an beneficiary principle is important – it gives
individual or individuals, where that benefit is so indirect or intangible or which is otherwise so framed as someone locus standi to enforce the trust.
not to give those persons any locus standi to apply to the court to enforce the trust, in which case the Where someone benefits so abstractly, they
beneficiary principle would, as do not have locus standi. Denley
it seems to me, apply to invalidate the trust… The present is not, in my judgment, of that character…in my differs because there are people
judgement, the beneficiary principle in re Astor’s Settlement…is confined to purpose or object trusts who benefit directly, and thus could be said
Charitable trusts
Oppenheim v The relevant trust was to apply income in providing for the education of children of employees or former
Tobacco employees of certain companies.
Securities This was a personal nexus linking the beneficiaries of the trust to the settlor and thus rendered the trust void
Trust Co Ltd as it was non-charitable.
[1951] Lord Simonds
Although the nature of the purpose (advancement of education) was beneficial, the employment
nexus rendered it private rather than public – the class of beneficiaries did not constitute a
sufficient section of the public.
Lord Normand and Lord Morton
Approval of the Compton principle: no class of beneficiaries can constitute a section of the public
for the purpose of the law of charity if the distinguishing quality which links them together is
relationship to a particular individual either through common descent or through common
employment.
Because those personal relationships are by nature non-public, the beneficiaries would be private
individuals instead of section of the community.
Testamentary trust of imperfect obligation
Pirbright v A trust for the care and upkeep of family graves and monuments was held to be valid for 21 years only.
Salwey [1896] It was held that, after the end of the perpetuity period, any surplus money should be given to whoever was
entitled to the reside of the estate.
Re Endacott The testator in this case had left his estate to a parish council to provide ‘some useful memorial’ to It is important in the assessment to make
[1960] himself. This was construed to be a trust for a non-charitable purpose trust that was not valid, even sure that the TIO fits the established
though it might be regarded as analogous to trusts to erect and maintain monuments and graves. categories, e.g. a statute may not be the
The cases of a TIO should not be extended. same as a monument or grave and thus may
be void.
Non-charitable purpose trusts
R v Denley Denley creates an exception to the beneficiary rule in non-charitable purpose trusts:
[1969] 1 Ch This quote demonstrates why the
373 Goff J Ratio ‘there may be a purpose or object trust, the carrying *383 out of which would benefit an beneficiary principle is important – it gives
individual or individuals, where that benefit is so indirect or intangible or which is otherwise so framed as someone locus standi to enforce the trust.
not to give those persons any locus standi to apply to the court to enforce the trust, in which case the Where someone benefits so abstractly, they
beneficiary principle would, as do not have locus standi. Denley
it seems to me, apply to invalidate the trust… The present is not, in my judgment, of that character…in my differs because there are people
judgement, the beneficiary principle in re Astor’s Settlement…is confined to purpose or object trusts who benefit directly, and thus could be said
