Category: Charity

Royal College of Surgeons of England v National Provincial Bank Ltd: HL 1952

The College was established to promote and encourage the study and practice of the art and science of surgery. The professional protection of members of the College (not a charitable purpose) was held to be ‘an incidental though an important and perhaps necessary consequence of the work of the College in carrying out its main object’.
Held: Some charitable trusts are inevitably likely to benefit some individuals, but they do not thereby lose that charitable status. If the main purpose of the body of persons is charitable and the only elements in its constitution and operations which are non-charitable are merely incidental to that main purpose, that body of persons is a charity notwithstanding the presence of those elements.

Citations:

[1952] AC 631

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sir Graham Stanley Latimer and others – Trustees for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue PC 25-Feb-2004
PC (New Zealand) The Crown created a charitable trust for certain Maori people. Upon exhaustion of the purpose, the fund was to revert to the Crown. The trustees appealed a finding of liability to income tax.
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Glasgow Police Athletic Association HL 9-Mar-1953
The House was asked whether the taxpayer association was established for ‘Charitable purposes only’ so as to benefit from tax exemptions. The association promoted sporting activities among members of the Glasgow police.
Held: Though the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194632

Milner v Staffordshire Congregational Union (Inc): ChD 1956

The plaintiff had contracted to buy land from a charity. The consent of the Charity Commissioners had not been obtained, but the contract was not conditional on such consent. When the charity trustess realised that consent was required they told the plaintiff that the contract was conditional on such consent and applied for consent. Before that consent was received, the plaintiff purported to rescind the contract, and sue for the return of his deposit.
Held: Dankwerts J said: ‘I have to decide what that Act means when it says: ‘make a sale’. It does not say ‘make a conveyance’ or ‘complete a sale’ or anything of that sort; it simply says ‘make any sale’, and I think for the purposes of the section, though I am bound to say that the matter is not free from doubt, that a sale is made when a contract is entered into by the owners of the property in question for the sale of the property to some purchaser. It is therefore a breach of the terms of the section if a body of charitable trustees enters into a contract to sell the trust property without the authority of the Charity Commissioners. I would observe that there is some support for this view to be found in the documents in the present *59 case. In the alleged contract the phrase is: ‘The property is sold subject to any reservations’, and so on, and in the solicitors’ letter of 24 September 1954, the expression is: ‘The sale of this property must be subject to the consent of the Charity Commissioners.’ It is perhaps then not unreasonable to think that the word ‘sale’ in the section must be used in a similar manner. I am not saying, of course, that a conveyance in pursuance of the purported contract would be any more lawful than the original contract; but it seems to me that the word ‘sale’ must include the making of a contract of sale at least as well as a conveyance on sale.’ The contract was unlawful; the plaintiff was not bound by it; and he was entitled to repayment. The court considered that the expression ‘make any sale’ in section 29 of the 1855 Act, included a contract for sale.

Judges:

Dankwerts J

Citations:

[1956] Ch 275, [1956] 2 WLR 556, [1956] 1 All ER 494

Statutes:

Charitable Trusts Amendment Act 1855 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bayoumi v Women’s Total Abstinence Union Ltd and Another ChD 21-Jan-2003
The claimant sought specific performance of a contract to purchase land from the defendant charity. The defendant had not complied with its obligations under the Act. The cliamant sought to say at the transaction came within s36(3) (that it was . .
Disapproved – Bayoumi v Women’s Total Abstinence Union Ltd and Another CA 5-Nov-2003
A charity entered into a contract for the sale of land. It failed to comply with the requirements under the Act. The purchaser assigned the benefit of the contract, to the claimant who sought to enforce the contract.
Held: The section only . .
Cited – Haslemere Estates Ltd v Baker 1982
A contract for the sale of land by a charity was expressed to be subject to and conditional upon the grant of a consent before 31 March 1982 and if consent was not granted before that date then the contract was to be ‘null and void and of no further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Charity

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187942

Re Camden’s Charity: 1881

Citations:

[1881] 28 ChD 310

Cited by:

Cited – Re Lepton’s Charity 1972
. .
Cited – Varsani and others v Jesani, Patel and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General CA 3-Apr-1998
A Hindu religious sect, constituted as a charity, had split into two factions.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to order that the assets of the sect should be divided under the powers in the Act, and held upon separate trusts for the two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187519

Attorney-General v Poole: 1938

Open space land had been conveyed to Poole Corporation ‘in fee simple to the intent that the same may for ever hereafter be preserved and used as an open space or as a pleasure or recreation ground for the public use.’
Held: There was no express reference in the Conveyance to the 1906 Act but the Court of Appeal thought it applied in any event.

Citations:

[1938] 1 Ch 23

Statutes:

Open Spaces Act 1906

Cited by:

Applied – Liverpool City Council v Attorney General 15-May-1992
Land had been given to the local authority ‘for use as a recreation ground and for no other purpose’ The Attorney-General sought to oblige the authority to maintain it as such.
Held: The form of gift was not charitable, and no obligation to . .
Cited – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Stock CACD 8-Aug-2008
The defendant sought to appeal his conviction in 1970 for robbery. He had refused to attend an identity parade but was then confronted with the main witness. Witnesses had also been shown photographs from which they were said to have selected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Local Government, Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187390

Liverpool City Council v Attorney General: 15 May 1992

Land had been given to the local authority ‘for use as a recreation ground and for no other purpose’ The Attorney-General sought to oblige the authority to maintain it as such.
Held: The form of gift was not charitable, and no obligation to maintain it was created. Even if the authority had allowed creation of a charitable trust, only the original donor could enforce that trust, and not the Attorney-General.

Citations:

Unreported, 15 May 1992, Times 01-May-1992

Citing:

Applied – Attorney-General v Poole 1938
Open space land had been conveyed to Poole Corporation ‘in fee simple to the intent that the same may for ever hereafter be preserved and used as an open space or as a pleasure or recreation ground for the public use.’
Held: There was no . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General, The Treasury Solicitor (Bona Vacantia) ChD 31-Jul-2002
Land was conveyed to the Council’s predecessor on condition that it be left available for use for sports and similar recreations, and left as an open space. It was now sought to develop the land as a home for a football club. The Council sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183317

In re Scarisbrick’s Will Trusts, Cockshott v Public Trustee: CA 1951

Possible Charity for poor persons within an area

The court was asked whether a trusts for poor persons within a restricted category, the testator’s descendants, not meeting the usual requirement that the benefits be available to a wider section of the community, may be held charitable.
Held: Such a trust could be charitable.
The dividing line between a charitable trust and a private trust ‘depended on whether as a matter of construction the gift was for the relief of poverty amongst a particular description of poor people [charitable] or was merely a gift to particular poor persons, the relief of poverty among them being the motive of the gift [private]’ The fact that the gift took the form of a perpetual trust would no doubt indicate that the intention of the donor could not have been to confer private benefits on particular people whose possible necessities he had in mind ; but the fact that the capital of the gift was to be distributed at once did not necessarily show that the gift was a private trust.
Jenkins LJ set out five general propositions upon whether a trust for the relief of poverty was charitable, saying: (i) It is a general rule that a trust or gift in order to be charitable in the legal sense must be for the benefit of the public or some section of the public; . . (ii) An aggregate of individuals ascertained by reference to some personal tie (e.g. of blood or contract) such as the relations of a particular individual, the members of a particular family, the employees of a particular firm, the members of a particular association, does not amount to the public or a section thereof for the purposes of the general rule; . . (in) It follows that according to the general rule above stated a trust or gift under which the beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries are confined (that is an important word) to some aggregate of individuals ascertained as above is not legally charitable even though its purposes are such that it would have been legally charitable if the range of potential beneficiaries had extended to the public at large or a section thereof (e.g. an educational trust confined as in Re Compton to the lawful descendants of three named persons, or, as in Oppenhein v. Tobacco Securities Trust Co., Ltd. to the children of employees of former employees of a particular company); . . (iv) There is, however, an exception to the general rule in that trusts or gifts for the relief of poverty have been held to be charitable even though they are limited in their application to some aggregate of individuals ascertained as above, and are, therefore, not trusts or gifts for the benefit of the public or a section thereof. This exception operates whether the personal tie is one of blood (as in the numerous so-called ‘poor relations’ cases, to some of which I will presently refer) or of contract . .’

Judges:

Jenkins LJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 All ER 822, [1951] Ch 622

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Scarisbrick’s Will Trusts, In re ChD 1950
The court considered whether a trust was charitable.
Held: The distinction lay in whether the gift took the form of a trust under which capital was retained and the income only applied for the benefit of the objects, in which case the gift was . .

Cited by:

Approved – Dingle v Turner and Others HL 16-Feb-1972
Gift to Specified person not Charitable
The 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Charity

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181257

Murdoch’s Trustees v Weir and Others: HL 6 Feb 1908

A testator directed that the residue of his estate should be employed in the relief of persons who, with other qualifications, had ‘shown practical sympathy in the pursuits of science.’
Per Lord Chancellor-‘All that can be required is that the description of the classes to be benefited shall be sufficiently certain to enable men of common sense to carry out the expressed wishes of the testator. . . Persons who have shown practical sympathy in an object obviously are persons who have given time or money, or made some sort of sacrifice to further it. I am satisfied the trustees, or failing them the Court, would find no difficulty in giving effect to the bequest.’

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Robertson, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 335, 45 SLR 335

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Charity

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621496

Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 1956

The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution established under the laws of another legal system.
Lord Morton said: ‘It is at once apparent that the phrase in section 37(1)(b) ‘any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only’ is not expressly limited to bodies of persons or trusts established in the United Kingdom, but the Court of Appeal held that it should be construed as being so limited. This conclusion was based entirely upon a consideration of the true construction of the Act of 1918 . . I agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal, and as no question of principle arises in this case, and my reasons are in substance the same as those appearing in the judgments of that court, I shall not detain your Lordships by setting them out in my own words.’
Lord Norman said: ‘it is clearly the English system that he has in mind, [referring to the judgment of Lord Evershed] for it goes without saying that the Attorney-General has no right to invoke the powers of the courts beyond the boundary of England.’
The phrase ‘trust established for charitable purposes only’, in section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1918, must be interpreted as being implicitly limited to trusts which were governed by the law of some part of the United Kingdom and were subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Normand

Citations:

[1956] AC 39, [1955] 3 All ER 97, 36 TC 126, [1955] UKHL TC – 36 – 126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1954
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to a company registered in New York for objects which were charitable according to the laws of England.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal against a finding that the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
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 . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.200676

Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs: SC 16 Oct 2019

A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose of a transfer of capital from the United Kingdom. The restriction of relief from inheritance tax to trusts governed by the law of a part of the United Kingdom is not supportable under EU law. Article 56 applies directly, must have effect in priority to inconsistent national law, whether judicial or legislative in origin.
Held: As the EU rules on free movement of capital do not apply in Jersey, Jersey is to be considered a third country for the purpose of a transfer of capital from the United Kingdom. Capital has moved from a member state where article 56 applies to a territory where it does not and that cannot be considered a purely internal situation. Accordingly, we would decline to make a preliminary reference on this point to the CJEU.
We conclude that article 56 EC applied to Mrs Coulter’s gift of assets in the United Kingdom to trustees in Jersey, that the refusal of relief from inheritance tax on that gift under section 23 of the Inheritance Tax Act was in breach of article 56, and that the appeal should therefore be allowed.

Judges:

Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 43, [2019] STI 1722, [2019] WLR(D) 588, [2019] PTSR 1924, [2019] 3 WLR 757, [2019] STC 2182, UKSC 2017/0190

Links:

Bailii, Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Apr 02 am Video, SC 2019 Apr pm Video, SC 2019 Apr 03 am Video, SC 2019 Apr 03 pm Video

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation (New Accessions) ECJ 8-Nov-2005
Europa Legislation on the export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom – 1972 Act of Accession – Protocol No 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – Regulation No 706/73 – Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and . .
At ChD – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
At CA (2) – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 17-Oct-2017
Inheritance tax, gifts to charities and freedom of capital . .
At CA (1) – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
Cited – Roque v The Lieutenant Governor of Jersey ECJ 16-Jul-1998
(Judgment) Free movement of persons – Act of Accession 1972 – Protocol No 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – Jersey
Article 4 of Protocol 3 to the Act of Accession did not prohibit a difference of treatment resulting from . .
Cited – Barclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .
Cited – van der Kooy v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 28-Jan-1999
Judgment – Part Four of the EC Treaty -? Article 227 of the EC Treaty ? Article 7(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ? Goods in free circulation in overseas countries and territories
Under the special arrangements applicable to the OCTs, . .
Determinative – Prunus (Free Movement Of Capital) ECJ 5-May-2011
Direct taxation – Free movement of capital – Article 64 TFEU – Legal persons established in a non-Member State – Ownership of immovable property located in a Member State – Tax on the market value of that property – Refusal of exemption – Assessment . .
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 23-Sep-2003
(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to implement, in respect of Gibraltar, Directives 67/548/EEC and 87/18/EEC (concerning dangerous chemical substances); 93/12/EEC (concerning liquid fuels); 79/113/EEC, . .
Cited – Department of Health and Social Security v Barr and Montrose Holdings (Judgment) ECJ 3-Jul-1991
Europa It follows from Article 1(3) of the Treaty of Accession 1972 in conjunction with Article 158 of the Act of Accession that the jurisdiction in preliminary ruling proceedings conferred on the Court by . .
Cited – X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 5-Jun-2014
(Judgment) Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State – Scope of European Union law – Special European Union-OCTs arrangements . .
Cited – The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and another (Government of Gibraltar intervening) ECJ 13-Jun-2017
ECJ Status of Gibraltar – Freedom To Provide Services – Purely Internal Situation – Inadmissibility : Judgment . .
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 21-Jul-2005
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 77/799/EEC – Mutual assistance by the competent authorities – Fields of VAT and excise duties – Partial transposition- Territory of Gibraltar. . .
Cited – Spain v United Kingdom ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ Law Governing – The Institutions – European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having citizenship of the Union. . .
Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1956
The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax, Charity, European, Constitutional

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.642829

Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 18 Sep 2014

Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust for charitable purposes’ in section 23(6) requires not only that the charitable purposes be UK law charitable purposes but that the relevant trust be subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts as well.’
The reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Dreyfus applies to the wording of section 23 of the IHTA. The Coulter Trust did not qualify for exemption under either limb of subsection (6) because it was not governed by United Kingdom law but by Jersey law: ‘The Appellants have not put forward any good reason why Parliament should have intended that the second limb of section 23 should be so much broader than the first, encompassing trusts governed by foreign law but limited to charitable bodies established under UK law. Another important plank in the reasoning of the Court in Dreyfus was that the distinction drawn between the first limb of section 37 (namely income of any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes) and the second limb of section 37 (namely income which according to the rule established by deed of trust or will are applicable to charitable purposes only) was intended only to distinguish between income held by bodies which are exclusively charitable on the one hand and bodies which are not exclusively charitable but which hold the relevant income for exclusively charitable purposes on the other. It was not intended to be a difference beyond that, allowing a much wider geographic range of bodies to fall within the second limb than could fall within the first. ‘

Judges:

Rose DBE J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3010 (Ch), [2014] BTC 42, [2014] WLR(D) 449, [2014] STI 2931, [2015] STC 451, [2015] PTSR 60, [2014] WTLR 1717

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1954
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to a company registered in New York for objects which were charitable according to the laws of England.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal against a finding that the . .
Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1956
The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution . .
Cited – HM Inspector of Taxes v Dextra Accessories Ltd HL 7-Jul-2005
The taxpayer companies had paid funds into a trust for employees. They sought to set off the payments against their liability to corporation tax. The revenue argued that they were deductible only in the year in which they were paid to the employees. . .

Cited by:

At ChD – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
At ChD – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax, Charity

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.536733

Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 16 Sep 2016

Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of capital. The revenue contended that the gift by a Jersey resident was to a Jersey Trust which was not solely charitable not being subject only to UK law.
Held: The authority as to the charity point was unassailable and the trustees’ appeal on that point failed. However, the court could not reconcile the question as to freedom of movement under European law, and it asked the parties to consider a question for referral to the European Court of Justice.

Judges:

Moore-Bick VP CA, Tomlinson, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 938, [2016] WLR(D) 496, [2016] STC 2218, [2016] BTC 38, [2016] STI 2653

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 23, TFEU 63, Income Tax Act 2007 989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ChD – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1954
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to a company registered in New York for objects which were charitable according to the laws of England.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal against a finding that the . .
Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1956
The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution . .
Cited – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Cited – Roque v The Lieutenant Governor of Jersey ECJ 16-Jul-1998
(Judgment) Free movement of persons – Act of Accession 1972 – Protocol No 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – Jersey . .
Cited – HM Inspector of Taxes v Dextra Accessories Ltd HL 7-Jul-2005
The taxpayer companies had paid funds into a trust for employees. They sought to set off the payments against their liability to corporation tax. The revenue argued that they were deductible only in the year in which they were paid to the employees. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 17-Oct-2017
Inheritance tax, gifts to charities and freedom of capital . .
At CA (1) – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax, Charity, European

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.569895

Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 17 Oct 2017

Inheritance tax, gifts to charities and freedom of capital

Judges:

Arden LJ, Briggs of Westbourne L, Green J

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1584, [2017] WLR(D) 672, [2018] PTSR 1063, [2017] WTLR 1119, [2018] 1 WLR 3013, [2017] BTC 28, [2018] STC 910

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .

Cited by:

At CA (2) – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax, Charity

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.597391

Revenue and Customs v University of Cambridge: CA 27 Mar 2018

The court decided to make a reference to the CJEU because it concluded that the correct approach to be taken to the issue of attribution was not acte clair.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 568, [2018] BVC 16, [2018] STC 848, [2018] STI 977

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Reference from – The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Cambridge ECJ 3-Jul-2019
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Deduction of input tax – Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions – Overheads . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Charity, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.608356

The Attorney-General v Dulwich College: 29 Jul 1841

By letters patent, E. A. was empowered to found a charity, consisting of a master and a specified number of other members, who were thereby created a corporation, with power to take certain lands. E. A. was empowered to make ordinances for the Government thereof, and for the better ordering of the estates, E. A. established the charity, and conveyed the lands to the use of the master and other members, of the numbers specified by the letters patent, and to no other intent and purpose whatsoever. He afterwards made orclinances, whereby, amongst other things, he added to the number of members specified by the letters patent ; and appropriated to them a portion of the revenues of the charity property, Held, that E. A. had not the power of creating additional members, or of declaring any trust of the property in their favour.
An information, alleging an abuse in the internal regulations of a charity dismissed, on the ground that they were the proper subject for the interference of the special visitor.

Citations:

[1841] EngR 957, (1840-1841) 4 Beav 255, (1841) 49 ER 337

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Charity

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.309135

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Oldham Training and Enterprise Council: ChD 11 Oct 1996

The court was asked whether Oldham TEC was established for exclusively charitable purposes. The Commisioners now appealed against a finding that tey were.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The promotion of commerce is not capable of being a charitable object per se. The objects of the company contained two main objects and three subsidiary objects, that the first main object, promoting and providing vocational education and training and re-training, was in itself charitable, and that the first two subsidiary objects were ancillary to the first main object, and did not detract from its charitable nature. The issue arose in relation to the second main object, namely ‘to promote industry, commerce and enterprise of all forms for the benefit of the public in and around Oldham’, read in the light of the third subsidiary object.
Lightman J observed that they show indicia of charity, in that it was an altruistic organisation, prohibiting benefits to its members and being set up to assist others, with emphasis on the overall objective of benefit to the public, or the community, in and around Oldham, and He posed the question as being whether the other object was to be read as subject to an implied limitation ‘so far as charitable’, and sought to answer it only by reference to the terms of the memorandum of association, except as regards evidence of whether an object, identified by the normal processes of construction, is charitable in its nature.
He concluded: ‘Under the unamended objects clause, the second main object, namely promoting trade, commerce and enterprise, and the ancillary object, of providing support services and advice to and for new businesses, on any fair reading must extend to enabling Oldham TEC to promote the interests of individuals engaged in trade, commerce or enterprise and provide benefits and services to them. Paragraph 4.2 of the statement of agreed facts shows that Oldham TEC in the form of the provision of enterprise services does exactly this. Such efforts on the part of Oldham TEC may be intended to make the recipients more profitable and thereby, or otherwise, to improve employment prospects in Oldham. But the existence of these objects, in so far as they confer freedom to provide such private benefits, regardless of the motive or the likely beneficial consequences for employment must disqualify Oldham TEC from having charitable status. The benefits to the community conferred by such activities are too remote.’
Although the object in question stipulated that the promotion of trade, commerce and enterprise was to be for the benefit of the public (or, in the amended version, the community), nevertheless the private benefits which were or could be conferred by the pursuit of this object were not merely incidental or subsidiary to the public benefit, and that for this reason the purpose was not charitable.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-1996, [1996] STC 1218

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 506(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82355

In Re Tonbridge School Chapel: ConC 23 Feb 1993

A freehold consecrated chapel could be leased out by the owners. There is nothing at common law to prevent such an act. The owners of the school chapel, being a charity and having first obtained the consent of the charity commissioners, the only possible objection lay from the chapel having been consecrated and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the consistory court. Being a private chapel, however it was not consecrated for public worship, and was not governed by the Act.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Pastoral Measure 1983 56(2)

Ecclesiastical, Charity

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82252

Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney and Another: CA 27 Jun 2019

A charitable institution was set up to provide and did provide housing assistance to members of the Orthodox Jewish Community. The court was now asked whether this discrimination was lawful.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1099, [2019] PTSR 2271, [2019] PTSR 2272

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Z and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another Admn 4-Feb-2019
The claim challenges the arrangements made by AIHA for the allocation of social housing properties owned or controlled by AIHA, which in present circumstances in effect preclude any persons who are not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from . .

Cited by:

Appeal from (CA) – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another SC 16-Oct-2020
Housing Orthodox Jewish Only not Discriminatory
Hackney had statutory housing functions as to allocating social housing. It also nominated applicants to properties owned by housing associations, including AIHA, which only accepted for such nominations households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Charity, Discrimination

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.638835

London Borough of Brent v Johnson: CA 18 Jan 2022

Whether Brent LBC holds land wholly or partly on charitable trusts; either because such a trust arose when it acquired the land or because of the way in which money was raised for its conversion into a community centre. There was a dispute about whether the second way of putting the case was a legitimate argument to be put before this court in view of the way in which the case was put below.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison
Lord Justice Arnold
And
Lord Justice Snowden

Citations:

[2022] EWCA Civ 28

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Local Government, Charity

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.671304

Hobourn Aero Components Limited’s Air Raid Distress Fund: CA 2 Jan 1946

The trust sought charitable exemption for sums collected voluntarily from workers in a munitions factory for the benefit of co-workers who had suffered in the Blitz. The judge had found the trusts not to be charitable.
Held: The appeal failed. Lord Greene MR: ‘The point to my mind which really puts this case beyond reasonable doubt is the fact that a number of employees of this company, actuated by motives of self-help, agreed to a deduction from their wages to constitute a fund to be applied for their own benefit without any question of poverty coming into it. Such an arrangement seems to me to stamp the whole transaction as one having a personal character, money put up by a number of people, not for the general benefit, but for their own individual benefit.’ Morton, L.J., as he then was, said (p. 209): ‘ Those eligible to receive benefits were not even all the employees of the particular company. They were those who chose to join in the scheme.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1946] 1 Ch 194, [1946] 1 All ER 501, [1946] Ch 194

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hobourn Aero Components Limited’s Air Raid Distress Fund 1946
Voluntary collections from employees of the munition factories belonging to a certain company were to be used to relieve without a means test the distress suffered by the employees from air raids.
Held: This was not a charity. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Glasgow Police Athletic Association HL 9-Mar-1953
The House was asked whether the taxpayer association was established for ‘Charitable purposes only’ so as to benefit from tax exemptions. The association promoted sporting activities among members of the Glasgow police.
Held: Though the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251603

Jones v Attorney General: CA 1974

The court was concerned with an appeal against an order made following an inquiry made under statutory powers by the Charity Commission, which had resulted in a written report. The court held that the issues were at large, but that the contents of the report should be admissible before the judge, so that it would not be necessary to start entirely from scratch.

Citations:

[1974] Ch 148

Statutes:

Charities Act 1960

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council ChD 2-Mar-2007
The company sought an order removing some 46 acres of land from designation as a village green. The claimant sought the amendment of the register. The parties disputed what evidence beyond that available to the committee making the decision should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251566

James and Another v Allen and others: ChD 30 Jun 1817

The testator left a bequest in trust for such ‘benevolent purposes’ as the trustees might unanimously agree upon.
Held: The word ‘benevolent’ when coupled with another was not sufficient to restrict the trusts to charitable purposes and it failed.

[1817] EWHC Ch J10
Bailii
England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Charity

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.241581

The Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Crawford and Another: ChNI 4 May 2016

The AG sought leave to appeal against a decision by the tribunal for the removal of a trustee of a police charity.
Held: Permission was given. The decision of the tribunal was open to proper criticism. The appeal raised several important issues.

[2016] NICh 8
Bailii
Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Cited – Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown CA 1985
There is no duty on a judge, in giving his reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. When dealing with an application in chambers to strike out for want of prosecution a judge should give his reasons in . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Charity

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564918

Singh v The Charity Commission and Others: ChD 22 Dec 2016

The court considered the circumstances under which a withdrawal of a case might be challenged: ‘(1) the rules do not prescribe any particular test for permitting discontinuance or, for that matter, for setting aside a notice of discontinuance; (2) a claimant’s desire to bring proceedings to an end where there is no counterclaim should be respected, not least because a claimant cannot be compelled to prosecute a claim; (3) the court has an inherent discretion including as to the timing of any discontinuance; (4) as with any judicial discretion, it may only be exercised in accordance with principle but is otherwise unfettered; (5) the court’s objective, both substantively and procedurally, is to achieve a just result according to law and to limit costs to those proportionate to the case; (6) the consideration required of the court is of all the circumstances and not merely those concerning only one party or only some of the parties; (7) when considering all the circumstances, conduct, particularly that aimed at abusing or frustrating the court’s process or securing an unjust tactical advantage, is relevant and may well be important, but it is by no means conclusive; and, (8) when considering all the circumstances, the court should also have in mind its realistic options, which may include imposing conditions while the proceedings remain extant.’

Barker QC HHJ
[2016] EWHC B33 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Stati and Others v The Republic of Kazakhstan CA 10-Aug-2018
Appeal from an order setting aside a notice of discontinuance filed by the Appellants as claimants in proceedings under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a New York Convention award. He directed that the allegations made by the . .
Cited – Arcadia Group Ltd and Others v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 8-Feb-2019
Claimant’s application for leave to withdraw request for injunction to prevent publication of stories regarding matters subject to non-disclosure agreements.
Held: Granted. An junction had been granted, but Lord Hain had disclosed protected . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.577846

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain and Others v The Charity Commission: CA 15 Mar 2016

The Charity resisted a proposed investigation by the respondent regarding safeguarding of vulnerable beneficiaries, in particular children who are subject to or make allegations of sexual abuse by individuals who are connected with Jehovah’s Witness congregations.

Lordd Dyson MR, McCombe, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 154
Bailii
Charities Act 2011
England and Wales

Charity

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561129

Setchim and Another v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others: ChD 4 Jul 2014

The commonwealth Institute, a registered charity, had gone into solvent members’ voluntary winding up, and the court now considered the propriety of passing the funds to a successor charity.

David Richards
[2014] EWHC 2218 (Ch)
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 112
England and Wales

Company, Charity

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.533808

The Magistrates and Town Council of Perth v Messrs Thomas Black, William Stewart, and William Wilson, Ministers of Perth; George Fauhney and George Robertson, Hospital Masters of Perth; Mr Robert Lyon, Moderator of The Presbytery of Perth: HL 6 Mar 1730

Title to Pursue – A presbytery may pursue in the name of a kirk-session within their bounds, upon a grant made to that kirk-session for charitable uses.
Prescription – Possession during forty years without a title not sufficient, in order to plead the negative prescription.

[1730] UKHL 1 – Paton – 39, (1730) 1 Paton 39
Bailii
Scotland

Charity

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554263

Reb Moishe Foundation v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Charity): FTTTx 21 Jul 2020

Income Tax – Charity – whether or not loan to company was an approved charitable investment – whether loan for the benefit of the charity and not for the avoidance of tax – determination of amount of non-allowable expenditure – whether or not FTT has full appellate jurisdiction or merely supervisory jurisdiction – held that loan was for the benefit of the charity but also for the avoidance of tax – held that the amount of non-allowable expenditure should be determined by reference to payments made in tax year – held that FTT’s jurisdiction was merely supervisory as regards HMRC’s decision but that HMRC’s decision was not unreasonable in principle but had determined the amount of non-allowable expenditure wrongly – appeal allowed in part

[2020] UKFTT 303 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Charity

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.653144

Revenue and Customs v Longridge On The Thames: UTTC 13 Nov 2014

VAT – whether building intended for use solely for a relevant charitable purpose – charity with objects of educating young people in water borne activities – construction of training centre – whether construction services zero-rated – whether charity carrying on a business/economic activity – Section 30 and items 2 and 4 of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to VATA 1994 – Note (6) to Group 5

[2014] UKUT 504 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Charity

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539411

Marwaha v Singh and Others: CA 6 Nov 2013

Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Hallett, Sharp LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1878, [2014] PTSR 1166
Baillii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Marwaha and Others v Singh and Others ChD 18-Feb-2013
The claimants sought injunctions and declaratory relief relating to: (a) a purported amendment to the constitution of the Guru Tegh Bahadur Gurdwara (‘the charity’); (b) the completion of a new list of members of the charity; and (c) for amendment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Company

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537766

Bath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General, The Treasury Solicitor (Bona Vacantia): ChD 31 Jul 2002

Land was conveyed to the Council’s predecessor on condition that it be left available for use for sports and similar recreations, and left as an open space. It was now sought to develop the land as a home for a football club. The Council sought determination of whether the trusts were charitable, or whether it held the land under the 1937 or 1976 Acts; if the words ‘upon trust’ could be read to be a mere reference to a statutory purpose.
Held: The fact that the trusts might fail as charitable trusts and that the council’s money would be spent in pursuing them did not mean, of themselves, that the trust created was a reference to the council’s statutory powers. The word ‘trusts’ can have wide uses, but in a conveyance, it has a technical meaning. The trusts were not restrictive as to who should benefit. The fact that members of various clubs might be the ones to take benefit did not prevent the trust being for the benefit of the public, though gifts for the promotion of sporting interests were not generally charitable. This particular trust was charitable. The Council could accept the land on charitable trusts.

The Honourable Mr Justice Hart
[2002] EWCA 1623 (Ch)
Bailii
Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 4, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 19
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Richmond on Thames London Borough Council v Attorney-General 1982
. .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Attorney General 15-May-1992
Land had been given to the local authority ‘for use as a recreation ground and for no other purpose’ The Attorney-General sought to oblige the authority to maintain it as such.
Held: The form of gift was not charitable, and no obligation to . .
Cited – Tito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
Cited – Dunne v Byrne PC 22-Feb-1912
Will – Construction – Charitable Bequest – Fund to be expended for the Good of
Religion – Religious Purposes.
Held, that a residuary bequest ‘to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane and his successors to be used and expended wholly . .
Cited – Monds v Stackhouse 1948
(High Court of Australia) A gift of money was made to the Corporation of a city to provide the nucleus of a fund to provide ‘a suitable hall or theatre for the holding of concerts to provide music for the citizens of the City and for the production . .
Cited – Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others CA 22-Mar-1995
The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged.
Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Charity, Trusts

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.174432

Hitchin Cow Commoners Trust, Re: ChD 5 Dec 2001

Land was registered as a common. Rights had been created over the land under the 1882 Act after the Inclosure Acts. Were these rights in the nature of charitable trusts? No use of the land as a cow common had taken place with living memory, and most of the land had been occupied as a football club under leases.
Held: The issue was as to whether trust was for the intended beneficiaries as a class of resident freemen, or a decision of general application on the nature of the interest of commoners in the compensation fund. The beneficiaries of the trust for use as common land for grazing are the occupiers from time to time. The Commissioners had correctly declared a trust of the land, and being a trust for the residents of a town, it was charitable.

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
[2001] EWHC Ch 468
Bailii
Commons Registration Act 1965, Commonable Rights Compensation Act 1882
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Nash v Coombs 1868
The parties disputed interests in a sum of andpound;3053 paid by the Midland Railway Company for the acquisition in 1866 of common land. The right of common was vested in resident freemen as a result of an award of the Inclosure Commissioners in . .
Cited – Re Christchurch Inclosure Act 1888
. .
Cited – Peggs and Others v Lamb and Others ChD 20-Apr-1993
Where beneficiaries had dwindled and income increased, the class of beneficiaries was extended. A gift to a class of people would be construed to be charitable unless there was something in the gift to exclude the presumption. It had been submitted . .
Cited – Re Hadden ChD 1931
A trust of land for its use for the purposes of public recreation such as playing fields, parks, and gymnasiums, is charitable. Clauson J construed the late Mr Hadden’s will as establishing a trust for the supply of healthy recreation carried on . .
Cited – Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland PC 1978
Lord Wilberforce approved Somervell LJ’s words in Greenhalgh: ‘This is the true basis of the doctrine in Henderson v Henderson and it ought only to be applied when the facts are such as to amount to an abuse: otherwise there is a danger of a party . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Charity

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.167104

In re Smith: 1932

A gift ‘unto my country England’ was construed as a charitable gift for the benefit of the inhabitants of England and, by analogy with the cases on gifts to a parish, town or city, as impressed with a trust that it be applied for charitable purposes only.
The court will favour making a testator’s testamentary dispositions effective if possible within the limitations and in accordance with the principles of law
Otherwise: Re Smith, Public Trustee v Smith

[1932] 1 Ch 153
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sir Graham Stanley Latimer and others – Trustees for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue PC 25-Feb-2004
PC (New Zealand) The Crown created a charitable trust for certain Maori people. Upon exhaustion of the purpose, the fund was to revert to the Crown. The trustees appealed a finding of liability to income tax.
Cited – Gibbs v Harding and others ChD 12-Jan-2007
The testatrix left a will anticipating making another. The court was asked whether a clause leaving her estate to ‘be taken over by the Diocese of Westminster to hold in trust for the Black community of Hackney’ was valid.
Held: The gift was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Wills and Probate

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.194633

Re Nottage: CA 12 Jul 1895

A testator bequeathed a fund in trust to provide annually for ever a cup to be given to the most successful yacht of the season, stating that his object in giving the cup was to encourage the sport of yacht-racing.
Held: (affirming the decision of Kekewich J), that a gift for the encouragement of a mere sport, though it might be beneficial to the public, could not be upheld as charitable.
The law does not regard the promotion of any particular sport, for its own sake, as charitable.
Lopes LJ did not accept that ‘a gift, the object of which is the encouragement of a mere sport or game primarily calculated to amuse individuals apart from the community at large’, was charitable, even if that sport or game benefited the public. His reasoning was motivated by a reluctance to ‘open a very wide door’ through which courts would classify gifts for promoting other sports and games as charitable on the ground that they ‘promote the health and bodily well-being of the community’.

Lopes LJ
[1895] 2 Ch 649, [1895] UKLawRpCh 118
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
Distinguished – Re Hadden ChD 1931
A trust of land for its use for the purposes of public recreation such as playing fields, parks, and gymnasiums, is charitable. Clauson J construed the late Mr Hadden’s will as establishing a trust for the supply of healthy recreation carried on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Wills and Probate

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.245264

Re Hadden: ChD 1931

A trust of land for its use for the purposes of public recreation such as playing fields, parks, and gymnasiums, is charitable. Clauson J construed the late Mr Hadden’s will as establishing a trust for the supply of healthy recreation carried on mainly or chiefly in the open air and, in particular, by means of the provision of playing fields, parks and gymnasiums. As the trust was to be permanent, it had to be a charitable trust if it were to avoid offending the rule against perpetuities
Clauson J distinguished Nottage saying: ‘ . . I am of the opinion that the fact that the provision of prizes and like means for the mere encouragement of sport has been held not to be a charitable purpose (see In re Nottage …) offers no obstacle in the way of my conclusion. I see no trace in the present will of a desire to encourage mere sport; the health and welfare of the working classes is obviously the dominant object in the testator’s mind. Nor can I see that any difficulty arises from the fact that the testator contemplates that the beneficiaries should be working people, that is to say, using the term in the popular though inaccurate sense, members of a social class who are not likely to have satisfactory facilities for similar recreation within the cartilage of their own houses. It is surely far too late in the day to suggest that, in so far as it may be necessary that the element of public benefit should be inherent in the trust if it is to be held charitable, that element is not secured by the direction that working people generally are to be beneficiaries.’
‘… I ought to add that I am of the opinion that the fact that the provision of prizes and like means for the mere encouragement of sport has been held not to be a charitable purpose (see Re Nottage) offers no obstacle in the way of my conclusion. I see no trace in the present will of a desire to encourage mere sport; the health and welfare of the working classes is obviously the dominant object in the testator’s mind.’
Clauson J went on to conclude that the working classes were a sufficient section of the public to meet the public benefit test, to which further reference is made below. It was the ‘health and welfare of the working classes’ that was the relevant object of the trust. That approach, so far as playing polo is concerned, would not assist the saving of the trust in this case.

Clauson J
[1932] 1 Ch 133, [1931] All ER 539
Mortmain and Charitable Users Act 1888
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Re Nottage CA 12-Jul-1895
A testator bequeathed a fund in trust to provide annually for ever a cup to be given to the most successful yacht of the season, stating that his object in giving the cup was to encourage the sport of yacht-racing.
Held: (affirming the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hitchin Cow Commoners Trust, Re ChD 5-Dec-2001
Land was registered as a common. Rights had been created over the land under the 1882 Act after the Inclosure Acts. Were these rights in the nature of charitable trusts? No use of the land as a cow common had taken place with living memory, and most . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Trusts

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.182829

Re Coxen, McCallum v Coxen: ChD 1948

The provision for an annual dinner for the charity trustees did not undermine the body’s charitable status.
Jenkins J summarised the law applicable where ‘a fund or the income thereof is directed to be applied primarily to purposes which are not charitable and as to the balance or residue to purposes which are charitable’, saying: ‘[T]he result of the authorities appears to be: (a) that where the amount applicable to the non-charitable purpose can be quantified the trusts fail quoad that amount but take effect in favour of the charitable purpose as regards the remainder; (b) that where the amount applicable to the non-charitable purpose cannot be quantified the trusts both charitable and non-charitable wholly fail because it cannot in such a case be held that any ascertainable part of the fund or the income thereof is devoted to charity; (c) that there is an exception to the general rule in what are commonly known as the ‘Tomb cases’ that is to say, cases in which there is a primary trust to apply the income of a fund in perpetuity in the repair of a tomb not in a church, followed by a charitable trust in terms extending only to the balance or residue of such income, the established rule in cases of this particular class being to ignore the invalid trust for the repair of the tomb and treat the whole income as devoted to the charitable purpose; and (d) that there is an exception of a more general character where as a matter of construction the gift to charity is a gift of the entire fund or income subject to the payments thereout required to give effect to the non-charitable purpose, in which case the amount set free by the failure of the non-charitable gift is caught by and passes under the charitable gift.’

Jenkins J
[1948] Ch 747
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re Tuck’s Settlement Trusts CA 1-Nov-1977
By his will, Sir Adolph Tuck sought to ensure that his successors should be Jewish, and stated that the arbitrators of this must be the Chief Rabbi of his community. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.510141

Marwaha and Others v Singh and Others: ChD 18 Feb 2013

The claimants sought injunctions and declaratory relief relating to: (a) a purported amendment to the constitution of the Guru Tegh Bahadur Gurdwara (‘the charity’); (b) the completion of a new list of members of the charity; and (c) for amendment of the scheme applicable to the charity so as to facilitate an election of a new executive committee for the charity.

Peling QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC B6 (Ch), [2013] PTSR D14
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Marwaha v Singh and Others CA 6-Nov-2013
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Company

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.510168

Rosenzweig v NMC Recordings Ltd: ChD 4 Dec 2013

The claimant a composer and musician said that the defendant charity’s failure to incorporate his music within their programmes was the result of the personal animosity of its chairman, and that this allowed relief under section 115(1) of the 2011 Act.

Norris J
[2013] EWHC 3792 (Ch), [2014] PTSR 261
Bailii
Charities Act 2011 115(1)
England and Wales

Charity

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518723

In re Hummeltenberg; Beatty v London Spiritualistic Alliance Limited: ChD 1923

A testator by his will bequeathed 3,000 pounds to the London Spiritualistic Alliance Limited to form the nucleus of a fund for the purpose of establishing a college for the training and developing a suitable person’s male and female as mediums, preference being given to healing mediums, and those for diagnosis of disease.
A committee of three of the council was to control the money, and invest and use the interest for the above-mentioned purpose; and if that became impracticable, then for the advancement of the cause of spiritualism as seemed best to the council. Should at any time the alliance cease to exist, the testator directed his residuary estate to be divided equally between certain hospitals.
Held: The request was invalid, involving, as it did, a perpetuity, because it had not been established that the trust was one which was, or might be, operative for the public benefit, or one of the administration of which the court could, if necessary undertake or control. It was therefore not a valid charitable gift, and fell into residue. Whether a gift or trust was or might be operative for the public benefit was a question to be determined by the court, by forming an opinion on the evidence before it, the personal or private opinion of the judge being immaterial; but it was not a question of which the donor of the gift or the creator of the trust was as had been contended, the only judge.

Russell J
[1923] 1 Ch 237, [1923] All ER 49
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.653057

Cocks v Manners: ChD 26 Jul 1871

Testatrix, a married woman, bequeathed the residue of all her property, consisting of impure and pure personalty belonging to her separate use, to be divided equally between four religious institutions, two of them being the Dominican convent at C, an institution consisting of Roman Catholic females living together by mutual agreement in a state of celibacy, under a common superior, for the purpose of sanctifying their own souls by prayer and pious contemplation, and the Sisters of Charity of St. Paul at S0, an institution composed of Roman Catholic women living together by mutual consent, whose primary object was personal sanctification, and who, as a means thereto, employed themselves in the exercise of works of piety and charity in teaching the poor and nursing the sick ; and directed that the payments should be made to the superior for the time being respectively.
Held: that the community of sisters at S0 was a voluntary association and a charitable institution, and that the bequest to them was good as to the pure personalty:
Held: also, that the bequest to the Dominican convent at C was neither within the letter nor the spirit of 43 Eliz. c. 4 ; that it was good both as to the pure and impure personalty; and that it was not void on the ground of perpetuity. Semble, religious purposes are charitable only when religious services tend directly or indirectly towards the instruction or edification of the public.
Wickens VC said: ‘On the Act [sc. the Statute of ‘ Elizabeth] unaffected by authority I should certainly hold that the gift to the Dominican Convent is neither within the letter nor the spirit of it; and no decision has been referred to which compels me to adopt a different conclusion. A voluntary association of women for the purpose of working out their own salvation by religious exercises and self-denial seems to me to have none of the requisites of a charitable institution, whether the word ‘ charitable’ is used in its popular sense or in its legal sense. It is said, in some of the cases, that religious purposes are charitable, but that can only be true as to religious services tending directly or indirectly towards the instruction or the edification of the public; an annuity to an individual, so long as he spent his time in retirement and constant devotion, would not be charitable, nor would a gift to ten persons, so long as they lived together in retirement and performed acts of devotion, be charitable. Therefore the gift to the Dominican Convent is not, in my opinion, a gift on a charitable trust.’

Wickens VC
(1871) LR 12 Eq 574, (1871) 24 LT 869, (1871) 36 JP 244, (1871) 19 WR 1055, [1871] UKLawRpEq 152
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.653054

In re Caus; Lindeboom v Camille: ChD 1934

A Roman Catholic testator by his will bequeathed 1,000 pounds for Masses, foundation and other and also devoted four houses ‘for one Foundation Mass to be said for my soul and the souls of my parents and relatives during the space of 25 years’ and directed that property should revert to a named church. Evidence was given that by a ‘Foundation mass’ was intended a mass the saying of which was to be paid for out of the interest of an investment fund so that unless the gift was charitable it would be void for perpetuity.
Held: A gift for the saying of masses is charitable as being for the advancement of religion because it enables a ritual act to be performed which is the central act of the origin of a large proportion of Christian people, and because it assists in the endowment of priests whose duty it is to perform the act period.

[1934] 1 Ch 162
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.653059

Hoare v Hoare: 1887

It is not a charitable purpose to provide for Church of England services in a private chapel, nor Almshouses for estate labourers, nor for the education of estate children.

(1887) 56 LT 147
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.653058

National Anti-Vivisection League v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 2 Jul 1947

The main object of the Society was political viz, the repeal of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, and for that reason the Society was not established for charitable purposes only and was not entitled to exemption from tax. An organisation whose aims could be seen as harmful to the public could not be recognised as a charity. the object of repealing the Act of 1876 was ‘a main object, if not the main object, of the Society, to obtain an alteration of the law.’
Seeking an amendment of acts of parliament, or even their repeal, where that is ancillary to one of the established charitable objects in common law did not deprive an organisation of its charitable status. But this society ‘has chosen to restrict its attack upon cruelty to a narrow and peculiar field, and it has adopted as its leading purpose the suppression of vivisection by legislation’
Lord Simonds said that there may be circumstances in which the Court will in a later age hold an object not to be charitable which has in earlier ages been held to possess that virtue. And the converse case may be possible. That degree of uncertainty in the law must be admitted.
Lord Simonds said: ‘Nowhere perhaps did the favour shown by the law to charities exhibit itself more clearly than in the development of the doctrine of general charitable intention, under which the court, finding in a bequest (often, as I humbly think, on a flimsy pretext) a general charitable intention, disregarded the fact that the named object was against the policy of the law . .’

Wright, Porter, Simonds, Norman LL
[1948] AC 31, [1947] UKHL 4, [1947] 2 All ER 217
Bailii
Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Income Tax Special Commissioners v Pemsel HL 20-Jul-1891
Charitable Purposes used with technical meaning
The House was asked whether, in a taxing statute applying to the whole of the United Kingdom and allowing for deductions from and allowances against the income of land vested in trustees for charitable purposes, the words ‘charitable purposes’ . .

Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General v British Museum ChD 27-May-2005
The trustees brought a claim against the Attorney-General seeking clarification of their duties and powers to return objects which were part of the collection in law, but where a moral duty might exist to return it to a former owner. Here drawings . .
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.220239

Dunne v Byrne: PC 22 Feb 1912

Will – Construction – Charitable Bequest – Fund to be expended for the Good of
Religion – Religious Purposes.
Held, that a residuary bequest ‘to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane and his successors to be used and expended wholly or in part as such Archbishop may judge most conducive to the good of religion in this diocese’ is not a good charitable bequest and is void. The expression used by the testator is not identical with the expression ‘for religious purposes.’
Where the purposes of a trust are expressed in plain language, it is not permissible to appeal to the nature of the trustee in order to impart a charitable character.
What the Archbishop might consider to be conducive to ‘the good of religion’ could cover activities that were not charitable in law. It was the width of the subjective view of the Archbishop and the lack of restriction to purely charitable religious activities that were fatal to the charitable status of the gift.
Lord Macnaghten said: ‘The fund is to be applied in such manner as the ‘Archbishop may judge most conducive to the good of religion’ in his diocese. It can hardly be disputed that a thing may be ‘conducive’, and in particular circumstances ‘most conducive’, to the good of religion in a particular diocese or in a particular district without being charitable in the sense which the Court attaches to the word, and indeed without being in itself in any sense religious.’
Lord Macnaghten managed to distinguish the case from the general principle that a gift for religious purposes is a good charitable gift by reasoning: ‘This is not in terms a gift for religious purposes, nor are the words synonymous with that expression. Their Lordships agree with the opinion of the Chief Justice that the expression used by this testator is wider and more indefinite.’

Lord MacNaghten
[1912] AC 407, [1912] UKLawRpAC 16, (1912) 28 TLR 257, [1911-13] All ER 1105, [1912] UKPCHCA 2, (1912) 16 CLR 500, (1912) 18 Argus LR 122
Commonlii, Austlii, Bailii
Australia
Citing:
Appeal from – James Byrne v Robert Dunne 16-Dec-1910
(High Court of Australia) Will – Bequest for religious purposes – Charitable trust – Uncertainty – Gift of residue to Roman Catholic Archbishop and successors – ‘ To be used wholly or ‘ in part as ‘ the donee ‘ may judge most conducive to the good . .
Exemplar – White, In re; White v White ChD 8-Feb-1893
A testator gave his property ‘to the [listed] religious societies, to be divided in equal shares among them,’ the particular objects not being named.
Held: (reversing Kekewich J) A bequest to a religious institution, or for a religious . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General, The Treasury Solicitor (Bona Vacantia) ChD 31-Jul-2002
Land was conveyed to the Council’s predecessor on condition that it be left available for use for sports and similar recreations, and left as an open space. It was now sought to develop the land as a home for a football club. The Council sought . .
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Charity, Wills and Probate

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.181218

Inland Revenue v Broadway Cottages: CA 26 Jul 1954

Two charitable trusts appealed against decisions disallowing their claim to allowance for relief against income tax of certain incomes.
Held: To be valid, a trust must be one which the Court can control and execute. In this case, the discretion given to the trutees was absolute, and nor was the class of beneficiaries ascertainable.

Singleton, Jenkins, Hodson LJJ
[1954] EWCA Civ 4, [1955] Ch 20, (1954) 33 ATC 305, [1954] 3 All ER 120, [1954] TR 295, [1954] 3 WLR 438
Bailii
Income Tax Act 1918 37(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morice v Bishop of Durham HL 1805
The court was asked whether a gift of residue to be applied ‘to such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve of’ was valid as being confined to purposes that were charitable.
Held: . .
Cited – In re Gestetner ChD 1953
The court considered a discretionary distribution power given to trustees.
Held: Harman J said that the trustees were bound ‘to consider at all times during which the trust is to continue whether or no to distribute any and if so what part of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Charity

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.262848

Harries and Others v Church Commissioners for England and Another: ChD 25 Oct 1991

Trustees Investing using Wider Considerations

The applicant sought a declaration that the Commissioners were obliged to have regard to the object of promoting the Christian faith and not to act in a manner which would be incompatible with that object when managing the assets of which they were trustees. The plaintiffs said that the commissioners, in making investment decisions, attached overriding importance to financial considerations, and that they were only prepared to take non-financial considerations into account to the extent that they did not significantly jeopardise or interfere with accepted investment principles.
Held: The declarations sought were refused. The Church Commissioners were entitled to take ethical considerations into account in forming an investment policy provided there was no risk of detriment to the Trust funds. Ethical investments putting financial return at risk were not open to trustees. Investments should aim for the best return, and be chosen only not to conflict with any express aims of the charity, and should not be used to make moral statements. Trustees must find balance neither bringing their charity into disrepute, nor failing to act with prudence. Such considerations could be allowed provided they did not adversely affect the return.
When property was held by trustees for the purpose of generating money, then prima facie, the purposes of the trust were best served by the trustees seeking to obtain the best return which was consistent with commercial prudence and in most cases, the best interests of the charity required that the trustees’ choice of investments be made solely on the basis of well-established investment criteria. The circumstances in which charity trustees were bound or entitled to make financially disadvantageous investment decisions for ethical considerations were extremely limited and there was no evidence that such circumstances existed in the case before the court. The declaration was refused.
Donald Nicholls VC said: ‘the law is not so cynical as to require trustees to behave in a fashion which would bring them or their charity into disrepute . . on the other hand, trustees must act prudently. They must not use property held by them for investment purposes as a means for making moral statements at the expense of the charity of which they are trustees.’

Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Gazette 11-Nov-1991, [1992] 1 WLR 1241, [1992] 2 All ER 300, [1991] 135 SJLB 180, Times 30-Oct-1991, Independent 29-Oct-1991
England and Wales

Trusts, Equity, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.81250

Oxfam v Revenue and Customs: ChD 27 Nov 2009

The charity appealed against refusal to allow it to reclaim input VAT. It also sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal not to allow it to raise an argument of legitimate expectation. The charity had various subsidiaries conducting commercial activities, which paid VAT in its supplies. The parties disputed how input taxes were attributed between the different activitie, particularly in the context of unrestricted fundraising expenditure.
Held: The Tribunal had had power to listen to the argument on legitimate expectation. In 2000, the revenue had written to the claimant setting out the agreed calculation methods, but the law had altered on the Church of England case. However ‘in a case such as this, involving an assurance given to only one person and where there is no irrationality on the part of the public authority in adopting a different approach, the absence of detrimental reliance on the part of the person to whom the assurance is given is fatal to the argument that to modify the assurance would involve an abuse of power on the part of the public authority which gave the assurance.’

Sales J
[2009] EWHC 3078 (Ch), Times 31-Dec-2009
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994 24(5), Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 17
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Oxfam v Revenue and Customs VDT 30-Jul-2008
VDT VAT – INPUT TAX – Charity applying method apportioning VAT to business purposes – Church of England Children’s Society decision permitted the Appellant to recover part of VAT incurred on unrestricted . .
Cited – Gus Merchandise Corporation Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 24-Oct-1994
The Commissioners’ general tax management powers include a power to enter into a binding contract with taxpayers as to the method of calculation of Excess VAT paid on sales to agents was not recoverable since there was a binding agreement. . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Boots Company Plc ChD 16-Mar-2009
. .
Cited – Church of England Children’s Society v Revenue and Customs ChD 29-Jul-2005
The Society sent out free newsletters to its unpaid fund-raisers and supporters. They sought to deduct input tax charged to them from the supplies associated with the costs.
Held: The Society might be able to deduct such tax as residual input . .
Cited – Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz ECJ 26-May-2005
Europa Sixth VAT Directive – Supplies for consideration – Share issue – Admission of a company to a stock exchange – Deductibility of VAT).
Kretztechnik’s objects were the development and sale of . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Bamber, Regina (on the Application Of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 21-Dec-2005
. .
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade HL 15-Jul-1970
Cylinders containing hydrogen gas were being put on a trailer pulled by a tractor for the purpose of delivery to the premises of the purchaser. One of the issues before the court was whether the function of the hydrogen trailers and the cylinders . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
Duty of Fairness to taxpayer – Written Assurance
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
Cited – In Re Findlay, in re Hogben HL 1985
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Charity, Administrative

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.381597

Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 9 May 2012

The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a charitable organisation. The articles allowed some tenants to become members of the company, and would allow pursuance of objects other than the provision of social housing. It was argued that members would thus be able to run the company for their own benefit. The question was whether, the separate objects being independent of each other, the housing object remained predominant, and the company charitable.
Held: The company’s appeal failed. Though the company ran for public benefit, that was not enough of itself to make it charitable: ‘the provision of a housing stock available for occupation by tenants generally (rather than so as to relieve a charitable need) is not a charitable purpose, because it could only be so if it came within Lord Macnaghten’s fourth category, and it does not do that because it is not within the spirit and intendment of the preamble, nor is it analogous with the examples in the preamble of works of general public utility.’
As to the benefits to individuals: ‘the objects of Helena are not limited, on their true construction, to undertaking operations which are for the primary benefit of the community, to the exclusion of non-incidental benefit for individuals.’
The observations of the Court of Appeal on abuse of right are not binding as a matter of ratio, but they remain persuasive.

Lloyd, Black, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 569, [2012] PTSR 1409, [2012] WLR(D) 142
Bailii
Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morice v The Bishop of Durham CA 26-Mar-1804
Bequest, in trust for such objects of benevolence and liberality as the trustee in his own discretion shall most approve, cannot be supported as a charitable Legacy ; and is therefore a Trust for the next of kin.
Ann Cracherade by her Will, . .
Cited – Morice v Bishop of Durham HL 1805
The court was asked whether a gift of residue to be applied ‘to such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve of’ was valid as being confined to purposes that were charitable.
Held: . .
Cited – The Trustees Of The British Museum v White 8-Jul-1826
William White, deceased, devised a freehold estate to trustees, in trust to sell it, and pay the proceeds, together with his residuary personal estate, to the Trustees of the British Museum, to be by them employed for the benefit of that . .
Cited – Income Tax Special Commissioners v Pemsel HL 20-Jul-1891
Charitable Purposes used with technical meaning
The House was asked whether, in a taxing statute applying to the whole of the United Kingdom and allowing for deductions from and allowances against the income of land vested in trustees for charitable purposes, the words ‘charitable purposes’ . .
Cited – In re Macduff; Macduff v Macduff CA 1896
Lindley LJ qualified the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in Pemsel: ‘Now Sir Samuel Romilly did not mean, and I am certain Lord Macnaghten did not mean, to say that every object of public general utility must necessarily be a charity. Some may be, and . .
Cited – Williams’ Trustees v Inland Revenue Commisioners HL 1947
A trust was created by the memorandum and articles of association of a company. The overall objects of the company were to promote Welsh interests in London. The principal object of the trust was to create a centre in London ‘for promoting the moral . .
Cited – In Re Strakosch 1949
The court may construe a gift as impliedly limited to charitable purposes. Lord Greene MR said: ‘In Williams’ Trustees v Inland Revenue Commissioners the House of Lords has laid down very clearly that in order to come within Lord Macnaghten’s fourth . .
Cited – Scottish Burial Reform and Cremation Society v Glasgow Corporation HL 26-Jul-1967
The appellants sought partial exemption from rates on its premises. The Corporation challenged their charitable status. The society’s object was to encourage and provide facilities for cremation.
Held: The object was charitable.
Lord Reid . .
Cited – Incorporated Council of Law Reporting For England And Wales v Attorney-General And Others CA 14-Oct-1971
The Council sought charitable status for its activities of reporting the law. The Revenue appealed against the decision by Foster J that the Council ought to be registered as a charity.
Held: The appeal failed. The company should have . .
Appeal From – Helena Partnerships Limited v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 6-Apr-2011
UTTC Registered Social Landlord – objects for ‘benefit of the community’ – whether charity – no – availability of relief under s 505 Taxes Act – no . .
At FTTTx – Helena Housing Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Feb-2010
FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – ASSESSMENT – DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE – Was the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for its Schedule A business – No – Was the Appellant a Charity – No – Appeal dismissed . .
Cited – Williams’ Trustees v Inland Revenue Commisioners HL 1947
A trust was created by the memorandum and articles of association of a company. The overall objects of the company were to promote Welsh interests in London. The principal object of the trust was to create a centre in London ‘for promoting the moral . .
Cited – General Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council HL 1959
The court considered how to decide whether the Council could claim exemption from rates.
Held: The court should restrict its consideration to the purposes as set out and not look to the actual activities. The relevant clause had as its main . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v McMullen CA 1979
The Football Association had set up a trust to promote football in universities and schools, claiming this was charitable under the 1958 Act.
Held: The trust was not charitable whether as being for the advancement of education, or in the . .
Cited – In re South Place Ethical Society 1980
The court considered the meaning and nature of religious belief, and whether a trust for this purpose could be charitable.
Held: Dillon J referred to Russell LJ as having taken the view that the court could hold that there are purposes ‘so . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v McMullen HL 6-Mar-1980
HL Charity – Promotion of sport – Trust created ‘to organise or provide or assist in the organisation and provision of facilities which will enable and encourage pupils of schools and universities in any part of . .
Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
Cited – Attorney General of the Caymen Islands and others v Even Wahr-Hansen PC 26-Jun-2000
(Caymen Islands) A memorandum of agreement that proceeds of a trust fund should be paid to ‘any one or more religious, charitable or educational institutions . . or . . operating for the public good’ was not charitable since it the objects were not . .
Cited – Kendall v Granger CA 2-Jul-1842
Bequest of personalty to trustees, to be ‘applied for the relief of domestic distress, assisting indigent but deserving individuals, or encouraging undertakings of general utility.’ Held, void as a charitable bequest. . .
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s appeal . .
Cited – The Attorney-General v Aspinall 4-Jul-1836
Municipal corporations hold their property for public charitable purposes. . .
Cited – In Re Estlin 1903
A home of rest was to be provided for lady teachers.
Held: This was a valid charitable bequest. . .
Cited – Attorney General v De Winton 1906
The Borough operated using all its borrowing powers. Its accounts were conducted in the name of its treasurer. The accounts were properly audited. A burgess complained at the payment of the interest on the loan accounts to the treasurer for payment . .
Cited – In Re James 1932
A legacy for the setting up and operation of a home of rest for the sisters of a religious community was a valid charitable bequest, on the basis that it was to be provided for persons in need of such a facility or amenity. . .
Cited – In re Compton; Powell v Compton CA 1945
The court considered the charitable status of a trust ‘for the education of Compton and Powell and Montague children’.
Held: It was not charitable. If the group of beneficiaries is distinguishable from other members of the community by a . .
Cited – Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd HL 13-Dec-1950
Trustees were directed to apply certain income in providing for ‘the education of children of employees or former employees’ of a British limited company or any of its subsidiary or allied companies. The number of eligible employees was over . .
Cited – Re Sanders 1954
A legacy to provide dwellings for the working classes and their families resident in the area of Pembroke Dock or within a radius of five miles, with preference for dockworkers and their families, was not a charitable bequest, because the class of . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Oldham Training and Enterprise Council ChD 11-Oct-1996
The court was asked whether Oldham TEC was established for exclusively charitable purposes. The Commisioners now appealed against a finding that tey were.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The promotion of commerce is not capable of being a . .
Cited – Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust Housing Association Ltd v Attorney-General 1983
Housing associations wished to build self-contained dwellings for sale to the elderly. The court was asked whether such activity would be charitable in nature.
Held: The proposed schemes were charitable. They were for the relief of the aged, . .

Cited by:
Cited – Pendragon Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 23-Jul-2013
The Revenue had imposed a penalty on the appellants saying that their arrangement for the sale and VAT taxation of demonstrator cars was, in European law terms. The taxpayer sought re-instatment of the First Tier Tribunal judgment in its favour.
Charity, Housing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.456517

Neville Estates Ltd v Madden: ChD 1962

A charitable trust was created for the benefit of the members of Catford Synagogue.
Held: The court considered three categories of valid non-charitable purpose gifts: (1) an absolute gift to members of an association at the date of the gift, under which the members take as joint tenants, and any member can sever his share; or (2) a trust for the members at the date of the gift, subject to their contractual rights and liabilities towards one another as members of the association.
Cross J said that: ‘a donor does not direct a special application of his gift unless he subjects it to a trust which prevents the governing body of the charity from using it for its general purposes. The fact that he expects it to be used – and that it is in fact used – for a special purpose is not enough.’
Cross J identified three ways in which a gift to an unincorporated association such as a sports club could take effect: ‘In the first place, it may, on its true construction, be a gift to the members of the association at the relevant date as joint tenants, so that any member can sever his share and claim it whether or not he continues to be a member of the association. Secondly, it may be a gift to the existing members not as joint tenants, but subject to their respective contractual rights and liabilities towards one another as members of the association. In such a case a member cannot sever his share. It will accrue to the other members on his death or resignation, even though such members include persons who became members after the gift took effect. If this is the effect of the gift, it will not be open to objection on the score of perpetuity or uncertainty unless there is something in its terms or circumstances or in the rules of the association which precludes the members at any given time from dividing the subject of the gift between them on the footing that they are solely entitled to it in equity.
Thirdly, the terms or circumstances of the gift or the rules of the association may show that the property in question is not to be at the disposal of the members for the time being, but is to be held in trust for or applied for the purposes of the association as a quasi-corporate entity. In this case the gift will fail unless the association is a charitable body.’

Cross J
[1962] Ch 832
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Leahy v Attorney-General of New South Wales PC 20-Apr-1959
leahy_agnswPC1959-4
A gift to an unincorporated association simpliciter, i.e. where neither the circumstances of the gift nor the directions given nor the object expressed impose on the donee the character of a trustee, is nothing else than a gift to its members at the . .

Cited by:
Approved – Re Recher’s Will Trusts ChD 1972
The deceased gave a share of the residue, to ‘The Anti-Vivisection Society, 76 Victoria Street, London S.W.1.’ She died in 1962 and her husband died in 1968. Until the end of 1956 a non-charitable unincorporated society, known as the ‘London and . .
Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
Cited – Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts ChD 1976
Harry Lipinski bequeathed his residuary estate on trust as to half for the Hull Judeans (Maccabi) Association to be used solely to construct and improve the new buildings for the association. The executors sought a determination whether the bequest . .
Cited – Re Grant’s Will Trusts ChD 1980
The deceased left property to the Labour Party property committee.
Held: A trust created by making a gift to the members of an unincorporated assoication as at the date of the gift can be wound up only if under the rules, the members could, at . .
Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.245259

The New Deer Community Association v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Nov 2014

FTTTx ZERO RATING – Construction – Construction of a building intended for use for a relevant charitable purpose – building described as a new pavilion – whether use as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community – In Part – whether available to the whole community to an extent of non sporting, social or recreational use – Yes – whether limited to members of the community who participate in sport and therefore constitute a special interest group – No – Schedule 8, Group 5, Notes (2), (6) and (10), VATA 1994. Appeal allowed in part.

[2014] UKFTT 1028 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Charity, VAT

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.539023

The Vestryman of The Parish of St Marylebone In Middlesex v The Zoological Society Of London: 31 May 1854

The Zoological Society was incorporated by Charter ‘for the advancement of Zoology and Animal Physiology, and the introduction of new and curious subjects of the animal kingdom.’ They occupied land on which were buildings appropriated as receptacles for housing animals and birds, and as a museum for stuffed specimens. Three acres, not so appropriated, were cultivated as a flower garden. Refreshment rooms on the premises were occupied for the purpose of supplying refreshment to visitors, by M, who paid to the Society a rent for this privilege. The public were admitted, to the grounds, either by paying money upon each admittance, or by ticketa given to them by the fellows. Once in the weeks for three months in tbe year, the Society procured the attendance of a musical band.
Held: The Society was not exempt from rates, under stat. 6 and 7 Vict. c. 36, s. 1, the premises not being occupied exclusively for the purposes of science. The Society was supported in part by annual contributions from the fellows and subscribers. Each fellow was entitled to personal admission, with a specified number of companions on, every day, and could also give admission at oertain times by written orders and tickets, to which he was entitled: and fellows were also entitled to purchase tickets giving free admission to the bearer. Subscribers also were entitled to purchase annually an ivory ticket, admitting a named person of their family, with a companion,. Semble: that the annual contributions by the felloes were not voluntary contributions within the meaning of sect 1, inasmuch as the fellows and subscribers obtained a benefit not purely scientific, in consideration of the payments.

[1854] EngR 566, (1854) 3 El and Bl 807, (1854) 118 ER 1343
Commonlii
England and Wales

Charity, Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.293423

Regina v Charity Commission for England and Wales ex parte Swain: Admn 2 Jul 1998

The applicant sought an order of certiorari to prevent an investigation of his companies which sought to raise funds for charities. Did the Charity Commission have jurisdiction under the section?
Held: The companies were themselves charities and clearly raised funds by proclaiming that the funds were being raised for charities. The moneys raised and held were subject to a charitable trust, and the Commission had jurisdiction to investigate.

[1998] EWHC Admin 698
Charities Act 1993 8

Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.138819

The Pollen Estate Trustees Ltd Kings College London v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 3 Aug 2012

UTTC STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – Charities and Minister of the Crown relief – whether reliefs apply to interest in land acquired by a charity or Minister of the Crown as a tenant in common pursuant to a purchase made through a bare trustee on behalf of the charity or Minister and other non-charitable or Crown joint owners – No FA2003 sections 42 to 44,48 ,49,55, 75A, 76,77,85,103,107,117 and Schedules 8 and 16.

Warren J
[2012] UKUT 277 (TCC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – The Pollen Estate Trustee Company Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 26-Jun-2013
The court was asked ‘If a charity acquires property in furtherance of its charitable purposes, or as an investment, it is entitled to relief against liability to pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on the purchase price.’
Held: The modern approach . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.466691

Dingle v Turner and Others: HL 16 Feb 1972

Gift to Specified person not Charitable

The 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. Here, 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. (Majority) The fiscal advantages obtained by making a gift charitable should not be taken into account in assessing its motives and charitable status.
Lord Cross of Chelsea said: ‘In truth the question whether or not the potential beneficiaries of a trust can fairly be said to constitute a section of the public is a question of degree and cannot be by itself decisive of the question whether the trust is a charity. Much must depend on the purpose of the trust. It may well be that, on the one hand, a trust to promote some purpose, prima facie charitable, will constitute a charity even though the class of potential beneficiaries might fairly be called a private class and that, on the other hand, a trust to promote another purpose, also prima facie charitable, will not constitute a charity even though the class of potential beneficiaries might seem to some people fairly describable as a section of the public . . To establish a trust for the education of the children of employees in a company in which you are interested is no doubt a meritorious act; but however numerous the employees may be the purpose which you are seeking to achieve is not a public purpose.’

Viscount Dilhorne, Lord MacDermott, Lord Hodson, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea
[1972] 2 WLR 523, [1972] UKHL 2, [1972] AC 601
lip, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – In re Scarisbrick’s Will Trusts, Cockshott v Public Trustee CA 1951
Possible Charity for poor persons within an area
The court was asked whether a trusts for poor persons within a restricted category, the testator’s descendants, not meeting the usual requirement that the benefits be available to a wider section of the community, may be held charitable.
Held: . .
Cited – In re Compton; Powell v Compton CA 1945
The court considered the charitable status of a trust ‘for the education of Compton and Powell and Montague children’.
Held: It was not charitable. If the group of beneficiaries is distinguishable from other members of the community by a . .
Criticised – Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd HL 13-Dec-1950
Trustees were directed to apply certain income in providing for ‘the education of children of employees or former employees’ of a British limited company or any of its subsidiary or allied companies. The number of eligible employees was over . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Wills and Probate

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.174317

Liverpool and District Hospital for Diseases of the Heart v Attorney-General: ChD 1981

Charitable Company is Trustee of Assets

The court was asked as to the distribution of surplus assets of a charitable company which was in winding up, and the question whether or not s 257 et seq. Companies Act 1948 applied, including s 265 which made provision for the distribution of surplus assets to members.
Held: The position of a charitable company in relation to its assets had ‘at all times been analogous to that of a trustee for charitable purposes’ and that that ‘suffices to give rise to the jurisdiction of the court to order a cy-pres scheme’. Slade J ordered a cy-pres scheme on the basis that the jurisdiction to do that was not limited to a case where there was a strict trust, and applied on the facts because the association’s constitution obliged the assets to be held for charitable purposes.
Slade J said: ‘The expressions ‘trust’ and ‘trust property’ may be, and indeed have been, used by the court in rather different senses in different contexts. Examples of cases where the court has used the expression otherwise than in their strict traditional sense are to be found in Lord Diplock’s review of certain earlier authorities in Ayerst v C. and K. (Construction) Ltd. [1976] AC 167, 179-180[7]. In a broad sense a corporate body may no doubt aptly be said to hold its assets as a ‘trustee’ for charitable purposes in any case where the terms of its constitution place a legally binding restriction upon it which obliges it to apply its assets for exclusively charitable purposes. In a broad sense it may even be said, in such a case, that the company is not the ‘beneficial owner’ of its assets. In my judgment, however, none of the authorities on which Mr Mummery has relied, including the decision in Construction Industry Training Board v Attorney-General [1973] Ch 173 , establish that a company formed under the Companies Act 1948 for charitable purposes is a trustee in the strict sense of its corporate assets, so that on a winding up these assets do not fall to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 257 et seq. of that Act. They do, in my opinion, clearly establish that such a company is in a position analogous to that of a trustee in relation to its corporate assets, such as ordinarily to give rise to the jurisdiction of the court to intervene in its affairs; but that is quite a different matter.’

Slade J
[1981] Ch 193, [1981] 1 All ER 994, [1981] 2 LR 379, (1980) 125 SJ 79
Companies Act 1948 257 265
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Von Ernst and Cie SA v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1979
The assets of a corporate charity were held on charitable trusts: ‘We were referred to certain authorities which give support to the view that a company incorporated for exclusively charitable purposes is in the position of a trustee of its funds or . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hope Community Church (Wymondham) v Phelan and Others ChD 22-May-2020
The Church, a private company limited by guarantee, sought a declaration that it had the right to enfranchise its church premises under the 1920 Act. . .
Cited – The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General and Others ChD 9-Jun-2017
The court considered the propriety of a payment made by a charitable company to a director for her loss of office. The charity was to transfer a substantial sum to a new charity headed by the departing director.
Held: The court approved the . .
Cited – Lehtimaki v The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) and Others CA 6-Jul-2018
A charity established by H and W wanted to transfer part of its fund to a new charity headed by W in return for her resignation from the first charity on the breakdown of the marriage. Court approval was sought for a transfer, but the remaining . .
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.652836

Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd: HL 13 Dec 1950

Trustees were directed to apply certain income in providing for ‘the education of children of employees or former employees’ of a British limited company or any of its subsidiary or allied companies. The number of eligible employees was over 110,000. Charitable status was claimed.
Held: The trust was not charitable. The nexus, that of being employment by particular employers, did not satisfy the test of public benefit to establish the trust as a charitable trust.
Lord Simonds said: ‘The question is whether that class of persons can be regarded as such a ‘section of the community’ as to satisfy the test of public benefit. These words ‘section of the community’ have no special sanctity, but they conveniently indicate first, that the possible (I emphasize the word ‘possible’) beneficiaries must not be numerically negligible, and secondly, that the quality which distinguishes them from other members of the community, so that they form by themselves a section of it, must be a quality which does not depend on their relationship to a particular individual. It is for this reason that a trust for the education of members of a family or, as in In re Compton [1945] Ch 123, of a number of families cannot be regarded as charitable. A group of persons may be numerous but, if the nexus between them is their personal relationship to a single propositus or to several propositi, they are neither the community nor a section of the community for charitable purposes.’
He remarked that whilst the law of charity is pervaded with illogicalities: ‘It must not, I think, be forgotten that charitable institutions enjoy rare and increasing privileges, and that the claim to come within that privileged class should be clearly established.’

Lord Simonds, Lord Normand, Lord Oaksey, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord MacDermott
[1951] AC 297 HL(E), [1950] UKHL 2, [1951] 1 All ER 31
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Verge v Somerville PC 1924
On an appeal from New South Wales, The Board considered the validity of a gift ‘to the trustees’ of the Repatriation Fund or other similar fund for the benefit of New South Wales returned soldiers’.
Held: Trusts for education and religion do . .

Cited by:
Criticised – Dingle v Turner and Others HL 16-Feb-1972
Gift to Specified person not Charitable
The 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 . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Glasgow Police Athletic Association HL 9-Mar-1953
The House was asked whether the taxpayer association was established for ‘Charitable purposes only’ so as to benefit from tax exemptions. The association promoted sporting activities among members of the Glasgow police.
Held: Though the . .
Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.181284

Harris v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Aug 2010

FTTTx Income tax – gift aid – s 25 FA 1990 – gifts to charity under deed of variation of a deceased’s estate – s 142 IHTA 1984 – – whether gift a qualifying donation – whether donors received a benefit in consequence of making the gifts – s 25(2)(e) FA 1990.

Berner J
[2010] UKFTT 385 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 1990 25, Inheritance Tax Act 1984 142(1), Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 62(6)
England and Wales

Income Tax, Charity

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.422354

Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another: SC 16 Oct 2020

Housing Orthodox Jewish Only not Discriminatory

Hackney had statutory housing functions as to allocating social housing. It also nominated applicants to properties owned by housing associations, including AIHA, which only accepted for such nominations households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish community. Hackney identified the First Appellant (Z), who is not a member of the Orthodox Jewish community, as having the highest level of housing need in the borough due to the vulnerability of her children (one of whom, RS, is the Second Appellant). Hackney agreed to make Z a ‘direct offer’ of the next available and suitable unit of permanent social housing. However, suitable housing was not provided until February 2019. Between October 2017 and February 2019, AIHA allocated various properties to members of the Orthodox Jewish community. The Appellants did not apply for, and Hackney did not nominate them for, any of those properties because of AIHA’s policy of only letting to Orthodox Jewish households.
The Appellants challenged AIHA’s allocation policy and Hackney’s allocation arrangements with AIHA by judicial review. The Divisional Court refused the application and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court was now asked whether the Housing Charity acted unlawfully or not in restricting access to its stock of social housing.
Held: Section 158 and 193 allowed certain limited exemption to the general prohibition of discrimination for protected characteristics. The actions of the Housing Association, and therefore the Council fell within those exemptions.

Lord Reed, President, Lord Kerr, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales
[2020] UKSC 40
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Equality Act 2010 158 193, Council Directive 2000/43/EC, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Appeal from (CA) – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney and Another CA 27-Jun-2019
A charitable institution was set up to provide and did provide housing assistance to members of the Orthodox Jewish Community. The court was now asked whether this discrimination was lawful. . .
At First Instance (Admn) – Z and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another Admn 4-Feb-2019
The claim challenges the arrangements made by AIHA for the allocation of social housing properties owned or controlled by AIHA, which in present circumstances in effect preclude any persons who are not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination, Charity, European

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.654666

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain v Charity Commission: Admn 12 Dec 2014

The respondent had instigated a statutory inquiry under the 2011 Act into the claimant’s child safeguarding practices, and policies after compaints made to it. The Society now sought judicial review of that decision, and to production orders made to support it. The respondent argued that the Charity should first use the statutory remedies available to it in the First Tier Tribunal.
Held: The matter would clearly require consideration of assorted Human Rights issues, but the First tier tribunal would be able to include such matters. The courtw as accordingly satisfied that the discretion to allow judicial review should not be exercised.

Dove J
[2014] EWHC 4135 (Admin)
Bailii
Charities Act 2011 46
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Baker, Regina (on the Application of) v Devon County Council CA 21-Dec-1992
The plaintiffs appealed against orders dismissing claims for judicial review. They had challenged the intended closure of residential homes for old people. The plaintiffs said that there had been inadequate consultation, and the Councils argued that . .
Cited – Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison HL 1988
The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review.
Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; . .
Cited – Regina v Devon County Council Ex Parte Baker, Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Broxson CA 22-Feb-1993
A Local Authority considering closing a residential home did not have a duty to notify and consult with each resident who might be affected, but did have a duty to act fairly, and to give sufficiently prominent notice and sufficient time to allow . .
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Cited – Regina (Great Yarmouth Port Company Limited) v Marine Management Organisation CA 2013
There is a presumption that the bespoke statutory regime will be deployed unless there are clear and powerful reasons which exceptionally justify judicial review being permitted. . .
Cited – Willford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .
Cited – Willford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.542591

The Pollen Estate Trustee Company Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 26 Jun 2013

The court was asked ‘If a charity acquires property in furtherance of its charitable purposes, or as an investment, it is entitled to relief against liability to pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on the purchase price.’
Held: The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to the purpose of a particular provision and interpret its language, so far as possible, in a way which best gives effect to that purpose. Where a charity contributed to the purchase of a property, to be held on trust for it and other, non-charitable, contributors in proportion to their contributions, the ‘chargeable interest acquired’ by reference to which stamp duty land tax was to be levied was the equitable estate collectively acquired by the beneficiaries under the trust. However, paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 8 to the 2003 Act was exempted the land transaction from charge to the extent of the charity’s interest.

Laws, McFarlane, Lewison LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 753, [2013] 1 WLR 3785, [2013] STC 1479, [2013] 3 All ER 742, [2013] WLR(D) 255, [2013] BTC 606, [2013] 27 EG 91, [2013] WTLR 1593, [2013] STI 2298
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2003 42(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – The Pollen Estate Trustees Ltd Kings College London v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 3-Aug-2012
UTTC STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – Charities and Minister of the Crown relief – whether reliefs apply to interest in land acquired by a charity or Minister of the Crown as a tenant in common pursuant to a purchase made . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department QBD 29-Aug-2014
The claimant challenged fines imposed on him after three illegal immigrants were found to have hidden in his lorry in the immigration control zone at Dunkirk. The 1999 At was to have been amended by the 2002 Act, and the implementation was by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Stamp Duty, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.511088

Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another: CA 12 May 2011

The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt under section 32. The claimant appealed against the finding of a blanket exemption, and continued after completion of the inquiry for which it had been obtained. Did the section refer to the purpose of obtaining the document, or that for which it was held (but no longer).
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal to consider the Human Rights arguments now raised. The grammar of the section was ambiguous or favoured the claimant. Nevertheless, the Act included provision for the release of documents after thirty years, which provision would be largely unnecessary if the claimant’s argument applied: ‘The controversy is put to rest when reference is made to section 18(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 which cannot be construed otherwise than as taking effect as an amendment of section 32(2) of FoIA. There would have been no need to pass it otherwise. The need to construe the exemptions restrictively cannot displace the true meaning. Thus, for the reasons largely given by Mr Beer [for the respondent] whose submissions I prefer on these points of the conventional approach to construction, I would have dismissed the appeal.’
However the appellant now raised a persuasive argument under the Convention, and ‘(1) Although the point was not argued before the appeal tribunal there is an understandable reason for that omission. Both judgments of the Strasbourg Court upon which Mr Coppel relies were only delivered at or about the time of the hearing before the tribunal and were not reported until later. These cases are Tarsasag a Szabadsagjogokert v Hungary [2009] ECHR 618 decided on 24th March or 14th April 2009 and apparently finalised only on 14th July 2009 and Kenedi v Hungary [2009] ECHR 78, (2009) BHRC 335 which was dated 26th May 2009. Although the arguments is late, it is not so late that we should ignore these very recent and potentially important new developments of Strasbourg jurisprudence.
(2) The present case is moreover an ideal one for the Article 10 point to be tested. Important and difficult questions are raised in the counter-argument of Mr Beer. If the appellant has to rely on his status as a journalist to bring Article 10 into play, should the Court be reading section 32(2) down when it would not be obliged to do so were the applicant an ordinary citizen not able as the public watchdog to invoke Article 10? Mr Beer submits that the FoIA is ‘applicant and motive blind’. Another important question is whether the Charity Commission hold an information monopoly which may be the necessary pre-condition to establish before Article 10 can be engaged: see Tarsasag. If Article 10 is engaged and interfered with is such interference justified and proportionate? All these matters may require further evidence.
(3) It is unlikely, at least so far as concerns the Charity Commission, that a better case for analysing the Convention point will arise again in the near future. If, as we are told, the Charity Commission are considering changing their rules to reflect more accurately procedures adopted by the courts for disclosure of information, then it would be helpful they did so with the implications of the Human Rights Act known in advance.
(4) The matters which the appellant seeks to investigate are obviously matters of general public interest and his investigation may be totally thwarted if his case fails as it would if we refused to countenance the Human Rights argument.
(5) If section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires the reading down of section 32(2) then my hesitations about the proper construction to place upon that subsection, and the more firmly expressed disenchantment of Jacob LJ, can be assuaged. ‘
Ward LJ, with whom Etherton J agreed, considered that section 32(1) and section 63(1) of the FOIA and section 18(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 supported that conclusion. Jacob LJ rested his conclusion solely on the basis of section 32 itself.

Ward, Jacob, Etherton LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 367, [2011] EMLR 24
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000 1 32, Inquiry Rules 2006, Inquiries Act 2005 18(3), European Convention on Human Rights 2 10
England and Wales
Citing:
At IT – Kennedy v Information Commissioner IT 14-Jun-2009
The claimant sought release of documents placed with the Charity Commission in connection with investigations into a charity.
Held: With certain exceptions, the applicaion failed: ‘once a public authority places documents it held prior to an . .
Appeal from – Kennedy v Information Commissioner Admn 19-Jan-2010
The claimant journalist had made a freedom of information request to the Charity Commission as to its investigations of a charity under section 8 of the 1993 Act. The Commission claimed absolute exemption under section 32(2). He now appealed against . .
Cited – Turco v Council (Law Governing The Institutions) ECFI 23-Nov-2004
ECJ Openness – Public access to Council documents – Partial refusal of access – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Exceptions. . .
Cited – Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner HL 9-Jul-2008
An MP had asked the Agency under the 2002 Act for details of all incidents of childhood leukaemia for both sexes by year from 1990 to 2003 for all the DG (Dumfries and Galloway) postal area by census ward. The Agency replied by saying that the . .
Cited – Sweden v API and Commission (Law Governing The Institutions) ECJ 21-Sep-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Appeals – Right of access to documents of the institutions – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Second and third indents of Article 4(2) – Pleadings lodged by the Commission in proceedings before . .
Cited – Fetherstonhaugh (formerly Finch) v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1985
. .
Cited – Kenedi v Hungary ECHR 26-May-2009
(Second Chamber) The applicant historian specialised in the analysis and recording of the secret services of dictatorships, comparative studies of the political police forces of totalitarian regimes and the functioning of Soviet-type States. The . .
Cited – Beaufort Developments (NI) Limited v Gilbert-Ash NI Limited and Others HL 26-Feb-1998
The contractual ability given to an arbitrator under standard JCT terms did not oust the court from assessing and prejudging the acts of the architect under a building contract. As to the means for interpreting documents, Lord Hoffmann said: ‘I . .
Cited – Tarsasag A Szabadsagjogokert v Hungary ECHR 14-Apr-2009
The court upheld a complaint by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union that, contrary to article 10, it had been refused access to details of a complaint in connection with drugs policy on the basis that details of the complaint could not be released, . .
Cited – Kennedy v Information Commissioner Admn 19-Jan-2010
The claimant journalist had made a freedom of information request to the Charity Commission as to its investigations of a charity under section 8 of the 1993 Act. The Commission claimed absolute exemption under section 32(2). He now appealed against . .

Cited by:
See Also – Kennedy v Charity Commission CA 20-Mar-2012
The claimant sought disclosure of an investigation conducted by the respondent. The respondent replied that the material was exempt within section 32(2). The court had found that that exemption continued permanently even after the inquiry was . .
Appeal from – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Charity, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.439736

Williams’ Trustees v Inland Revenue Commisioners: HL 1947

A trust was created by the memorandum and articles of association of a company. The overall objects of the company were to promote Welsh interests in London. The principal object of the trust was to create a centre in London ‘for promoting the moral social spiritual and educational welfare of Welsh people and fostering the study of the Welsh language and of Welsh history literature music and art.’ The House was asked whether the objects were charitable.
Held: Where a gift states an express purpose, that purpose must itself be charitable; and a non-charitable purpose trust cannot be validated by localising the gift. The property was not vested in the trustees for charitable purposes only, and consequently the company was not a charitable company.
Lord Simonds referred to the cases on charitable gifts to localities: ‘But I would suggest that it is possible to justify as charitable a gift to ‘my country England’ upon the ground that, where no purpose is defined, a charitable purpose is implicit in the context; it is at least not excluded by the express prescription of ‘public’ purposes. Where the gift is localized but the nature of the benefit is defined, no reconciliation is possible except on the assumption that the particular purpose was in each case regarded as falling within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the statute of Elizabeth, though I find it difficult to ascribe this quality to the benefit taken by the freemen of Saltash.’
He noted: ‘cases in which the question of charity has come before the courts are legion and no one who is versed in them will pretend that all the decisions even of the highest authority are easy to reconcile.’

Lord Simonds
[1947] UKHL 1, [1947] AC 447, [1947] 1 All ER 513
Bailii
Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gibbs v Harding and others ChD 12-Jan-2007
The testatrix left a will anticipating making another. The court was asked whether a clause leaving her estate to ‘be taken over by the Diocese of Westminster to hold in trust for the Black community of Hackney’ was valid.
Held: The gift was . .
Cited – In Re Strakosch 1949
The court may construe a gift as impliedly limited to charitable purposes. Lord Greene MR said: ‘In Williams’ Trustees v Inland Revenue Commissioners the House of Lords has laid down very clearly that in order to come within Lord Macnaghten’s fourth . .
Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.247695

Park v Cho and Others: ChD 24 Jan 2014

The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting of the stay after the claimant had received permission.
Held: The objection failed. Authority could be granted retrospectively. The practice of granting retrospective leave for proceedings has long been well-established in English cases. The phrase ‘the taking of proceedings’ would make little sense unless interpreted to include ‘initiating or commening proceedings’. ‘Taking of proceedings’ was possible in the course of an action which had already been commenced.
The Commission did not itself consider that it could grant retrospective consent, but the order made by the Charity Commission was a permissible order, authorising the taking of a step in the existing proceedings, albeit that the order did not authorise the proceedings from their inception.

Jeremy Cousins QC
[2014] EWHC 55 (Ch), [2014] PTSR 769, [2014] WLR(D) 27
Bailii, WLRD
Charities Act 2011 115
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Saunders (A Bankrupt) ChD 1997
Very emphatic language was required in a statute before want of leave should, without more, result in proceedings being treated as a nullity. Leave could in appropriate circumstances be granted after the event notwithstanding the proceedings had . .
Cited – Rendall v Blair 1890
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 . .
Cited – Strachan v The Gleaner Company Limited and Stokes PC 25-Jul-2005
PC (Jamacia) The plaintiff challenged an order setting aside a default assessment of damages in his claim for defamation. After the action was lost, two witnesses had come forward who might have allowed a defence . .
Cited – Simpson v Eggington 9-Feb-1855
It is a good answer to a plea of set-off, that the amount has heen paid by a person professing to act as agent for and on account of the plaintiff, though without his authority, and that the latter ratified the act at the time of the trial. The . .
Cited – The Attorney-General, At The Relation Of Joseph Greenhill v Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge; Trinity College, Oxford, And Frederick Greenhill 4-May-1865
Lord Chelmsford LC said, of an argument by that college that the leave of the Charity Commissioners ought to have been obtained to the plaintiff’s proceedings but had not been, that: ‘The objection if persisted in must prevail, but in that case [he] . .
Cited – Gray v Raper CCP 1866
The defendants had given promissory notes to a friendly society, which came to be dissolved. An action was brought for recovery of the debts, but without the necessary permission first.
Held: The failure was not one to be taken advantage of in . .
Cited – Glen v Gregg 1882
. .
Cited – In re Wanser Ltd 1891
A landlord of Scottish property began proceedings after a winding up order for sequestration of the company’s goods on the premises in order to answer for future rent.
Held: North J allowed the sequestration to continue, being satisfied that . .
Cited – Regina v Lord Mayor of London; Ex parte Boaler QBD 1893
Boaler had brought unsuccessful proceedings in the Lord Mayor’s Court against a company, and was ordered to pay its costs. When he failed to pay them, an order of commitment was made against him. He applied for certiorari, alleging, inter alia, that . .
Cited – In re Hutton (A Bankrupt), Mediterranean Machine Operations Ltd v Haigh and Others ChD 1969
Proceedings were instituted against a trustee in bankruptcy after he had seized an aircraft claimed by the plaintiff.
Held: There is no right to sue an officer of the court in another court, without the sanction of the court, which appointed . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Cited – Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 23-Jan-2009
The claimant received injuries when arrested. He was later convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant relied on section 329 of the 2003 Act. The claimant said that the force used against him was grossly disproportionate. The commissioner appealed . .
Cited – In re Ford’s Charity 6-Jul-1855
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.520824

Simpson and Others (Trustees of the East Berkshire Sports Foundation) v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 19 Jan 2009

SCIT Income Tax – Donations to charity – Assessment made to recover income tax initially refunded, the recovery based on the claim that donations to an alleged charity had not ranked as qualifying donations under section 25 Finance Act 1990 – whether the alleged donations took the form of ‘a payment of a sum of money’ – whether the recipient of the donations was a charity – Appeal dismissed

[2009] UKSPC SPC00732, [2009] STI 514, [2009] STC (SCD) 226, [2009] WTLR 499
Bailii
Finance Act 1990 25
England and Wales

Income Tax, Charity

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.373748

Kennedy v Information Commissioner: Admn 19 Jan 2010

The claimant journalist had made a freedom of information request to the Charity Commission as to its investigations of a charity under section 8 of the 1993 Act. The Commission claimed absolute exemption under section 32(2). He now appealed against rejection of his application by the Information Tribunal as to most of the material sought.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. Though the Charity Commmissioner had a discretion to disclose materials gathered during an investigation, it had no obligation to do so. The exemption continued notwithstanding that the enquiry was now concluded.

Calvert Smith J
[2010] EWHC 475 (Admin), [2010] WLR (D) 6
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000 59, Charities Act 1993 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Kennedy v Information Commissioner IT 14-Jun-2009
The claimant sought release of documents placed with the Charity Commission in connection with investigations into a charity.
Held: With certain exceptions, the applicaion failed: ‘once a public authority places documents it held prior to an . .
Cited – Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner HL 9-Jul-2008
An MP had asked the Agency under the 2002 Act for details of all incidents of childhood leukaemia for both sexes by year from 1990 to 2003 for all the DG (Dumfries and Galloway) postal area by census ward. The Agency replied by saying that the . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 12-May-2011
The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt . .
Appeal from – Kennedy v Charity Commission CA 20-Mar-2012
The claimant sought disclosure of an investigation conducted by the respondent. The respondent replied that the material was exempt within section 32(2). The court had found that that exemption continued permanently even after the inquiry was . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 12-May-2011
The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt . .
At Admin – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Information

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.402727

McGovern v Attorney-General: ChD 1982

Amnesty International established a trust with a view to obtaining charitable status for some of its activities.
Held: The trust established to promote certain of its objects was not charitable because it was established for political purpose; however a trust for research into the observance of human rights and the dissemination of the results of such research could be charitable. Slade J refused a declaration that the Trust ought to be registered as a charity. He found that although a trust set up for the relief of human suffering and distress would be capable of being charitable in nature it would not be charitable if any of its main objects were of a political nature that: trusts for the purpose of seeking to alter the laws of the United Kingdom or a foreign country or persuading a country’s government to alter its policies or administrative decisions were political in nature; and that, accordingly, the object of the trust to secure the release of prisoners of conscience by procuring the reversal of governmental policy or decisions by lawful persuasion was of a political nature and since that object affected all the trusts of the trustee, the trust was not a charitable one. But the object clauses of the Trust set up by Amnesty were very different from the rules of Bangor and the decision seems to me clearly distinguishable.’

Slade J
[1982] 1 Ch 321, [1981] 3 All ER 493
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.183295

Gilmour v Coats: HL 1949

Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable

A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown that it conferred any benefit on the public or on any section of the public. There is no proven or provable benefit to the community if the results of the contemplation are in no way communicated to the public’.
If religious beliefs are genuinely held, the ‘truth or falsity of religions is not the business of courts.’ The law of charity does not now favour one religion to another.
It would be unwise to regard charity law as a paradigm of rationality.
Lord Simonds said that charity law had been built up ‘not logically but empirically.’
Lord Simonds said: ‘I would speak with all respect and reverence of those who spend their lives in cloistered piety, and in this House of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, which daily commences its proceedings with intercessory prayers, how can I deny that the Divine Being may in His wisdom think fit to answer them? But, my Lords, whether 1 affirm or deny, whether I believe or disbelieve, what has that to do with the proof which the Court demands that a particular purpose satisfies the test of benefit to the community? Here is something which is manifestly not susceptible of proof. But, then it is said, this is a matter not of proof but of belief: for the value of intercessory prayer is a tenet of the Catholic faith, therefore in such prayer there is benefit to the community. But it is just at this ‘ therefore ‘ that I must pause. It is, no doubt, true that the advancement of religion is generally speaking one of the heads of charity. But it does not follow from this that the Court must accept as proved whatever a particular church believes. The faithful must embrace their faith believing where they cannot prove: the Court can act only on proof. A gift to two or ten or a hundred cloistered nuns in the belief that their prayers will benefit the world at large does not from that belief alone derive validity any more than does the belief of any other donor for any other purpose.’

Lord Reid, Lord Simonds
[1949] AC 426, [1949] UKHL 1, [1949] 1 All ER 848
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bourne v Keane HL 1919
Gift for Masses not Void for Superstition
An Irish Roman Catholic testator, domiciled in England, bequeathed 200 pounds to Westminster Cathedral for masses, and 200 pounds and his residuary personal Estate to the Jesuit Fathers of Farm Street, again for masses. The next of kin contended . .
Cited – National Anti-Vivisection League v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 2-Jul-1947
The main object of the Society was political viz, the repeal of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, and for that reason the Society was not established for charitable purposes only and was not entitled to exemption from tax. An organisation whose aims . .
Cited – White, In re; White v White ChD 8-Feb-1893
A testator gave his property ‘to the [listed] religious societies, to be divided in equal shares among them,’ the particular objects not being named.
Held: (reversing Kekewich J) A bequest to a religious institution, or for a religious . .
Cited – Cocks v Manners ChD 26-Jul-1871
Testatrix, a married woman, bequeathed the residue of all her property, consisting of impure and pure personalty belonging to her separate use, to be divided equally between four religious institutions, two of them being the Dominican convent at C, . .
Cited – Hoare v Hoare 1887
It is not a charitable purpose to provide for Church of England services in a private chapel, nor Almshouses for estate labourers, nor for the education of estate children. . .
Cited – Dunne v Byrne PC 22-Feb-1912
Will – Construction – Charitable Bequest – Fund to be expended for the Good of
Religion – Religious Purposes.
Held, that a residuary bequest ‘to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane and his successors to be used and expended wholly . .
Cited – In re Hummeltenberg; Beatty v London Spiritualistic Alliance Limited ChD 1923
A testator by his will bequeathed 3,000 pounds to the London Spiritualistic Alliance Limited to form the nucleus of a fund for the purpose of establishing a college for the training and developing a suitable person’s male and female as mediums, . .
Cited – In re Caus; Lindeboom v Camille ChD 1934
A Roman Catholic testator by his will bequeathed 1,000 pounds for Masses, foundation and other and also devoted four houses ‘for one Foundation Mass to be said for my soul and the souls of my parents and relatives during the space of 25 years’ and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Varsani and others v Jesani, Patel and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General CA 3-Apr-1998
A Hindu religious sect, constituted as a charity, had split into two factions.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to order that the assets of the sect should be divided under the powers in the Act, and held upon separate trusts for the two . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Glasgow Police Athletic Association HL 9-Mar-1953
The House was asked whether the taxpayer association was established for ‘Charitable purposes only’ so as to benefit from tax exemptions. The association promoted sporting activities among members of the Glasgow police.
Held: Though the . .
Cited – Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.187521

Attorney-General v Pearson: 1817

No Alteration to Charty’s Objects

A protestant dissenters’ meeting house in Wolverhampton which was declared by a trust deed to be held for ‘the worship and service of God’ was the subject of a dispute between the schismatic congregation. The issue was the nature of the worship denoted by those words and the occasion was the ejection of a minister.
Held: Referring to Craigdallie, Lord Eldon said: ‘if any persons seeking the benefit of a trust for charitable purposes should incline to the adoption of a different system from that which was intended by the original donors and founders; and if others of those who are interested think proper to adhere to the original system, the leaning of the Court must be to support those adhering to the original system, and not to sacrifice the original system to any change of sentiment in the persons seeking alteration, however commendable that proposed alteration may be.’

Lord Eldon
(1817) 3 Mer 353, [1817] EngR 645, (1817) 3 Mer 353, (1817) 36 ER 135
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Craigdallie v Aikman PC 14-Jun-2013
A chapel was acquired with the subscriptions of a congregation which seceded from the Church of Scotland in 1737 and subsequently split over whether a magistrate might suppress heresy. Each of the rival groups claimed that the chapel belonged to . .

Cited by:
Not followed – Varsani and others v Jesani, Patel and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General CA 3-Apr-1998
A Hindu religious sect, constituted as a charity, had split into two factions.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to order that the assets of the sect should be divided under the powers in the Act, and held upon separate trusts for the two . .
Cited – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Trusts

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.187518

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales: UTTC 2 Nov 2012

TLC Provision of adoption services by a charity – discrimination against homosexuals and same sex couples who are potential adoptive parents – whether objectively justified under section 193 of the Equality Act 2010 – analogy with approach under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights – whether permission should be granted for amendment of the charity’s Memorandum of Association.

Sales J
[2012] UKUT 395 (TCC)
Bailii
Equality Act 2010 193, European Convention on Hman Rights 14
England and Wales

Charity, Human Rights, Adoption, Discrimination

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.466704

Royal College of Nursing v Borough of St Marylebone: CA 27 Oct 1959

The College sought exemption from rates in respect of a nurses’ home saying that its objects made it a charitable organisation. It was not conducted for profit, but appeared to have two main purposes.
Held: Each of the purposes must be charitable for the exemption to apply. The one at issue was the object ‘to promote the advance of nursing as a profession in all or any of its branches’,

Morris, Romer, Willmer LJJ
[1959] EWCA Civ 1, [1959] 3 All ER 663, [1959] 1 WLR 1077
Bailii
Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Overseers of the Savoy v Art Union of London Limited QBD 1894
AL Smith LJ considered the objects of the company: ‘If the other object be only a means to the one end . . then the Society has a sole and exclusive object and not another object subsidiary thereto’. . .
Cited – General Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council HL 1959
The court considered how to decide whether the Council could claim exemption from rates.
Held: The court should restrict its consideration to the purposes as set out and not look to the actual activities. The relevant clause had as its main . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.262822

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another: ChD 17 Mar 2010

The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty finding a home, following the principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and it wanted to restrict its services to married couples, excluding same-sex, unmarried and civil partner couples, taking advantage of the exception in regulation 18 of the 2007 Regulations, by expressly restricting those to whom it might provide a service. The Charity Tribunal had restricted its interpretation of ‘benefits’ in the Regulation to to those derived from a ‘pure charitable activity’. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) argued that the change would deprive the charity of a claim to charity status.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted to the Commission for reconsideration in accordance with the principles identified. The 2007 Regulations made provision to protect the Human Rights to freedom of religion, and that must be respected in its interpretation.
Whereas an ordinary trust is valid only if it exists for the benefit of a defined class of beneficiaries, a charitable trust is, by definition, a purpose trust. However ‘although general charity law . . is the primary source for the understanding of the meaning of public benefit, it is no longer to be presumed that any particular type of purpose is for the public benefit. Section 3 [1996 Act] . . contemplates that purposes commonly regarded as charitable, such as the advancement of religion or education, the relief of sickness or poverty, or the care of children in need, may not be for the public benefit, for example if they are sought to be achieved in a particular manner.’ An organisation proposing a purpose for the public benefit will only qualify as a charity if, taking into account any dis-benefit arising from its modus operandi, its activities nonetheless yield a net public benefit.
‘[T]he purpose behind all the relevant exceptions in the [2007] Regulations . . is to exclude from the general prohibition types of differential treatment on grounds of sexual orientation which would, in the view of Parliament (applying for that purpose an appropriate margin of appreciation) be justified in the sense which I have described, so as to fall short of discrimination contrary to Article 14.’
The purpose of Regulation 18 is to afford to charities an exception from the prohibition of differential treatment on grounds of sexual orientation, wherever the public purpose being (or to be) achieved by the charity in question constitutes an Article 14 justification for that differential treatment.

Briggs J
[2010] EWHC 520 (Ch), Times 13-Apr-2010, [2010] PTSR 1074
Bailii
Charities Act 1993 64, Equality Act 2006 81, Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 18, European Convention on Human Rights 13, Charities Act 2006 1(1)(a) 3, Sex Discrimination Act 1975 43(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – C v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-1983
(Commission) ‘Article 9 primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds, ie, the area which is sometimes called the forum of the internal. In addition, it protects acts which are intimately linked with these attitudes, such as . .
Cited – Kozak v Poland ECHR 2-Mar-2010
In relation to the justification of differential treatment on grounds of sexual orientation, the State’s margin of appreciation is narrow, and that the principle of proportionality requires that the measure chosen to realise the legitimate aim must . .
Cited – Ladele v London Borough of Islington CA 15-Dec-2009
The appellant was employed as a registrar. She refused to preside at same sex partnership ceremonies, saying that they conflicted with her Christian beliefs.
Held: The council’s decision had clearly disadvantaged the claimant, and the question . .
Cited – EB v France ECHR 14-Mar-2007
A homosexual woman complained that she had not been allowed to adopt a child. Her application was rejected by the French administrative court on grounds based substantially upon her sexual orientation.
Held: The provision was an unlawful . .
Cited – Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 21-Dec-1999
There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not . .
Cited – Karlheinz Schmidt v Germany ECHR 18-Jul-1994
Article 14 of the Convention operates not by way of the conferral of a freestanding right not to be discriminated against, but rather by way of complementing the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Discrimination, Charity, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.403332

Rendall v Blair: 1890

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 when it is intended that some preliminary steps should be taken before the action is maintainable at all’ and ‘It directs what ought to be done. Unless the duty is complied with by the litigant the court must hold its hand. But it does not oblige the court to close the gates of mercy upon the applicant, but enables it to stay proceedings until that consent, which as a matter of duty ought to be obtained in the first instance, is obtained at last.’
The legislature knows well enough how to provide that leave shall be a strict condition precedent to valid proceedings being issued and that clear words are to be used if that is intended, words perhaps even requiring a provision for the dismissal of the proceedings if the condition precedent is not satisfied. Without some such clear language being used the provision can be taken to be directory.
Bowen LJ
(1890) 45 Ch D 139
Charitable Trusts Act 1853 17
Cited by:
Considered – In re Saunders (A Bankrupt) ChD 1997
Very emphatic language was required in a statute before want of leave should, without more, result in proceedings being treated as a nullity. Leave could in appropriate circumstances be granted after the event notwithstanding the proceedings had . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police CA 19-May-2005
Mr Seal noisily objected to a neighbour blocking in his car. Police were called who took him into custody under the 1983 Act. He was released several days later, and eventually sought damages for his wrongful treatment. He had failed to first seek . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Cited – Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 23-Jan-2009
The claimant received injuries when arrested. He was later convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant relied on section 329 of the 2003 Act. The claimant said that the force used against him was grossly disproportionate. The commissioner appealed . .
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.226024

The Attorney-General v The Haberdashers’ Company: 15 Nov 1832

The defendants and other companies were formerly obliged to keep a stock of corn for the supply of the market, and to sell it when the Lord Mayor directed, and he, on some occasions, fixed the price. In 1646 an estate was conveyed to trustees in trust to pay out of the rents certain annual sums. One of the sums was to be paid to the defendants for the increase of the stock of corn for the service of the market. Some of the other sums were given for clearly charitable purposes.
Held: that the gift to the defendants was not a charity,, and that the purpose of it having failed, they were entitled to apply it to their corporate purposes period
[1832] EngR 828, (1832) 5 Sim 478, (1832) 58 ER 417
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.319775

Attorney-General, At The Relaion Of Barrett And Hayman v The Mayor, Bailiffs, And Commonalty Of The City Of Exeter, Defendants: 10 Mar 1826

Semble. It is not a general rule of a court of equity, that a charitable gift for the benefits of the poor is to be confined to such poor as do not receive parish relief. Where trustees of a charity, under an instrument of doubtful construction, have acted honestly, though erroneously, they will not be charged in respect of past mis-application of the funds. Reluctance of the court to compel a corporation to make a discovery of the property which they possess applicable to general corporate purposes. In the reign of Henry VII, lands were given to the corporation of Exeter and their successors, for the aid and relief of the poor Citizens and inhabitants of Exeter, ‘who are heavily burdened by fee-farm rents of that city and other impositions and talliages’ Quaere, whether the rents ought to be applied to the relief only of such poor inhabitants of Exeter as do not receive parish relief? Quaere, whether it is a due administration of such a charity to apply the rights to the payment of fee-farm rents due from the city, repairing the goal, maintaining the prisoners, and other public purposes?
[1826] EngR 856, (1826) 2 Russ 45, (1826) 38 ER 252
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.325620