The Rev John Wilkinson, ran charities in Stoke Newington in London, including ‘the Mildmay Mission to the Jews’. He was given received 1350 pounds from ‘a lady’ locally who suggested that the money be used for a convalescent home. He pointed out that the provision of a home and school for children was more pressing. She replied: ‘Use it for that or any other way you like’. He purchased Cromwell Lodge, in his own name, and with no declaration of trust. The rest was used to fit out and equip Cromwell Lodge for use as a school and home for Jewish children. A year later a trust deed was executed conveying Cromwell Lodge, together with other property, to trustees (including Mr Wilkinson) on trust for the purposes of the Mission, namely ‘to preach the Gospel . . to Jews in Great Britain and Ireland (and also in foreign parts if it is deemed desirable), employing in the prosecution of the work’ activities including ‘homes for destitute children, agencies for procuring employment and assisting emigration, night schools . . sewing classes . . and for promoting the salvation of . . souls’. The Deed had other provisions, for matters such as the trustees’ powers of sale, investment and appointment of a director.
The Court of Appeal was asked whether the Attorney-General’s consent to the proposed sale of Cromwell Lodge was required under the 1853 Act. That in turn depended on whether the Deed was binding on the trustees, or whether, as Kekewich J had held, it: ‘made no difference to Mr Wilkinson’s powers’. If the former view was correct then the trustees could not apply the proceeds of sale of Cromwell Lodge as income; if the latter view was right, they could do so only with the consent of the Attorney General.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The latter view was right.
Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR said that the trustees appointed under the Deed: ‘do not, and cannot, challenge the validity of the trust deed under which they are acting, and it is plain that it would be a breach of trust to apply the proceeds of the sale of the house as income. Even if Mr Wilkinson could originally have done this, they are now bound to treat the proceeds of sale as capital, and invest it accordingly.’
He continued: ‘There is, moreover, a further difficulty in the way of the trustees. When money is given by charitable persons for somewhat indefinite purposes, a time comes when it is desirable, and indeed necessary, to prescribe accurately the terms of the charitable trust, and to prepare a scheme for that purpose. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the individual or the committee entrusted with the money must be deemed to have implied authority for and on behalf of the donors to declare the trusts to which the sums contributed are to be subject. If the individual or the committee depart from the general objects of the original donors, any deed of trust thus transgressing reasonable limits might be set aside by proper proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General, or possibly by one of the donors. But unless and until set aside or rectified, such a deed must be treated as in all respects decisive of the trusts which, by the authority of the donors, are to regulate the charity. And it is irrelevant to urge that the donors did not originally give any express directions on the subject . .’
Judges:
Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR
Citations:
[1907] 2 Ch 383
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shergill and Others v Khaira and Others SC 11-Jun-2014
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. . .
Considered – In re Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage’s Contract 1912
An established trust had collected subscriptions over many years, ptting those subscriptions wth other funds derived from the sale of one school property for the purchase of another. That property in turn came to be sold, and questions arose as to . .
Cited – Jeeves v Imperial Foods Ltd, Pension Scheme ChD 27-Jan-1986
Walton J explained that there may be many ‘occasions in law in which a fund is held on trust, but at the particular point there is no final definitive trust deed’. He went on to say that ‘it may very well be that . . a person who had contributed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Charity
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.542960