Charities 2
Tuesday, 29 March 2022 12:11
TI 1
Public benefit
- Benefit aspect
- Public aspect
- Generally, for a purpose to be for the public benefit it must satisfy both elements, unless it is
to relieve of prevent poverty
○ Dingle v Turner
▪ Testator left part of his property on charitable trusts for the relief of the poverty of
'the poor employees' of a company
▪ The appellant argued that it was not a charitable gift and that the gift failed
▪ Held, the purpose will not be charitable if the intention is to make a gift to a
specified person, even if it is a gift to alleviate poverty
▪ The intention of the gift was to benefit the poor generally who fell within a certain
description, rather than certain individuals
▪ Since they were a 'section of the public' the gift was charitable and did not fail
▪ The fiscal advantages obtained by making a gift charitable should not be taken
into account in assessing its motives and charitable status
Benefit aspect
- A purpose must be beneficial
○ No presumption of public benefit - must be provable if necessary
○ The benefits to the public should be capable of being recognised, identified, defined or
described
○ Some benefits seem to be accepted as self evident e.g. religion
○ Donor's idea of benefit isn't relevant
▪ Re Hummeltenberg - training of spiritualist mediums was not charitable because
spiritualism was not in 'the public benefit'
- Any detriment or harm that results from the purpose must not outweigh the benefit
○ Overwhelming benefits coupled with inconsequential detriment would not outweigh
public benefit - e.g. providing motorised disability scooters
○ 'Where the benefit of a purpose is obvious and commonly recognised, there is an even
greater need for evidence of detriment or harm to be clear and substantial, if it is to
outweigh that benefit'
Public aspect
- Benefit must be for the public generally or a section of the public
- A sufficient section of the public may include:
○ A particular geographical area (with no unreasonable restrictions)
○ A reference to a particular charitable need e.g. the elderly
○ A 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act as long as the restriction of benefits to
people having that characteristic is justified in relation to the purpose
○ NOT by reference to a family relationship or relationship with an employer
▪ No 'personal nexus'
▪ This does not apply to charities for the relief of poverty
TI 2
The personal nexus
- Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities
○ 'Education of the children of employees'
○ 110,000 eligible employees
○ Charitable status declines because of the personal nexus
- Re Koettgen
Equity and Trusts Page 1
Tuesday, 29 March 2022 12:11
TI 1
Public benefit
- Benefit aspect
- Public aspect
- Generally, for a purpose to be for the public benefit it must satisfy both elements, unless it is
to relieve of prevent poverty
○ Dingle v Turner
▪ Testator left part of his property on charitable trusts for the relief of the poverty of
'the poor employees' of a company
▪ The appellant argued that it was not a charitable gift and that the gift failed
▪ Held, the purpose will not be charitable if the intention is to make a gift to a
specified person, even if it is a gift to alleviate poverty
▪ The intention of the gift was to benefit the poor generally who fell within a certain
description, rather than certain individuals
▪ Since they were a 'section of the public' the gift was charitable and did not fail
▪ The fiscal advantages obtained by making a gift charitable should not be taken
into account in assessing its motives and charitable status
Benefit aspect
- A purpose must be beneficial
○ No presumption of public benefit - must be provable if necessary
○ The benefits to the public should be capable of being recognised, identified, defined or
described
○ Some benefits seem to be accepted as self evident e.g. religion
○ Donor's idea of benefit isn't relevant
▪ Re Hummeltenberg - training of spiritualist mediums was not charitable because
spiritualism was not in 'the public benefit'
- Any detriment or harm that results from the purpose must not outweigh the benefit
○ Overwhelming benefits coupled with inconsequential detriment would not outweigh
public benefit - e.g. providing motorised disability scooters
○ 'Where the benefit of a purpose is obvious and commonly recognised, there is an even
greater need for evidence of detriment or harm to be clear and substantial, if it is to
outweigh that benefit'
Public aspect
- Benefit must be for the public generally or a section of the public
- A sufficient section of the public may include:
○ A particular geographical area (with no unreasonable restrictions)
○ A reference to a particular charitable need e.g. the elderly
○ A 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act as long as the restriction of benefits to
people having that characteristic is justified in relation to the purpose
○ NOT by reference to a family relationship or relationship with an employer
▪ No 'personal nexus'
▪ This does not apply to charities for the relief of poverty
TI 2
The personal nexus
- Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities
○ 'Education of the children of employees'
○ 110,000 eligible employees
○ Charitable status declines because of the personal nexus
- Re Koettgen
Equity and Trusts Page 1
