A new scheme for the development of a new school which had not previously been considered by the court did not amount to a matter pending, even though another scheme in respect of the same charity funds had been so considered. He held that it was therefore necessary for the Charity Commissioners’ sanction to be … Continue reading In re Ford’s Charity: 6 Jul 1855
Where a statute requires leave to commence proceedings to be granted, a failure to obtain such consent does not automatically render the proceedings a nullity.
Bowen LJ said: ‘this section is not framed in the way in which sections are framed . .
References: [1855] EngR 661, (1855) 3 Drew 324, (1855) A) Links: Commonlii Coram: Sir Richard Kindersley V-C Ratio:A new scheme for the development of a new school which had not previously been considered by the court did not amount to a matter pending, even though another scheme in respect of the same charity funds had … Continue reading In re Ford’s Charity; 6 Jul 1855
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava religion in London. Held: Charities Act jurisdiction is restricted to charities registered … Continue reading Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary: CA 30 Jul 1997
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was obtained, but the court ordered the remaining … Continue reading Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper: SC 29 Jul 2020
The deed of trust establishing an endowed school provided that the master of the school should he appointed by the vicars of three specified parishes, and power was given to the three vicars to remove the master for certain specified causes. The . .
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .
