Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Charity - From: 1930 To: 1959

This page lists 43 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
In Re Robinson [1931] 2 Ch 122
1931

Maugham J
Charity
The claim concerned a gift which had been made to the German government for the benefit of disabled German soldiers. Held: The English court had no jurisdiction: "if the trustee is abroad there is no power in the Court to direct a scheme to be settled, and the practice in such a case is to hand over the fund to the trustee to be applied according to the trusts of the will without directing a scheme."
1 Citers


 
Re Hadden [1932] Ch 133
1932

Clauson J
Charity, Trusts
A trust of land for its use for the purposes of public recreation is charitable.
Mortmain and Charitable Users Act 1888
1 Citers



 
 In re Smith; 1932 - [1932] 1 Ch 153

 
 In Re James; 1932 - [1932] 2 Ch 25
 
Re Colonial Bishoprics Fund 1841 [1935] Ch 148
1935

Luxmoore J
Charity
The court was asked to make a order with respect to the Fund, a trust established in England for the endowment of Bishoprics in the Colonies. Held: The court had jurisdiction to make a cy-pres order. Since the trustees of the fund were in this country and the trusts were established here, he could direct the scheme, even though the objects of bounty were located abroad. It was not properly described as a foreign charity.
1 Citers


 
Re Marr's Will Trusts [1936] Ch 671
1936


Charity

1 Citers


 
Attorney-General v Poole [1938] 1 Ch 23
1938


Charity, Local Government, Land
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.
Open Spaces Act 1906
1 Citers


 
Farley v Westminster Bank [1939] UKHL 1; [1939] AC 430; 1939 SLT 228; 1939 SC (HL) 6; [1939] 3 All ER 491
30 Jun 1939
HL
Lord Atkin
Charity, Wills and Probate
The House was asked whether gifts in a will were expressed so vaguely as to be ineffective.
[ Bailii ]
 
Glazebrook v University of Leeds [1944] 1 Ch 193
1944
ChD
Uthwatt
Charity
The court upheld a charitable gift despite its uncertainty.
1 Citers


 
Chichester Diocesan Board of Finance v Simpson [1944] UKHL 2; [1944] AC 341
21 Jun 1944
HL

Wills and Probate, Charity
The court was asked whether a gift in a will to the trustees "for such charitable institution or institutions or other charitable or benevolent object or objects in England" as they should select, was valid. Held: "The fundamental principle is that the testator must by the terms of his will himself dispose of the property with which the will proposes to deal. With one single exception, he cannot by his will direct executors or trustees to do the business for him. That exception arises when the testator is minded to make gifts for charitable purposes, and where he directs his executors or trustees, within such limitations as he chooses to lay down, to make the selection of charities to be benefited. This exception from the general principle that the testator has to decide in his will the specific destination of his property is allowed because of the special favour which the English law shows to charities, and the conception of what is charitable for such purposes has been elaborately worked out so that the courts are able to determine whether a particular gift is charitable or not. " In this case the will allowed also for 'benevolent' and therefore non-charitable causes.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In re Compton; Powell v Compton; CA 1945 - [1945] Ch 123; [1945] 1 All ER 198; (1945) 61 TLR 167
 
Hobourn Aero Components Limited's Air Raid Distress Fund [1946] 1 Ch 87
1946

Cohen J
Charity
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.
1 Citers


 
Hobourn Aero Components Limited's Air Raid Distress Fund [1946] 1 Ch 194
2 Jan 1946
CA
Lord Greene MR
Charity
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."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Williams' Trustees v Inland Revenue Commisioners [1947] AC 447; [1947] UKHL 1; [1947] 1 All ER 513
1947
HL
Lord Simonds
Charity
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."
Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Dominion Students' Hall Trust [1947] Ch 183
1947

Evershed J
Charity, Discrimination
A trust deed imposed a 'colour bar'. Held: The court upheld a scheme which removed the bar. However, notionally there could be two complementary charities "one for white and one for coloured students". These notional trusts were not being incompatible with charitable objects.
1 Citers



 
 National Anti-Vivisection League v Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 2-Jul-1947 - [1948] AC 31; [1947] UKHL 4; [1947] 2 All ER 217
 
Re Coxen, McCallum v Coxen [1948] Ch 747
1948
ChD
Jenkins J
Charity
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.”
1 Citers


 
Monds v Stackhouse (1948) 77 CLR 232
1948

Latham LJ, Dixon and McTiernan JJ
Charity, Commonwealth
(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 of drama entertainments and the holding of meetings of a cultural or educational value". Held: The gift was charitable. A gift to a municipal corporation for enabling it to discharge one of its functions was charitable as bringing about a reduction of the burden of rates and taxes on the community. If the trusts created would otherwise be valid charitable trusts, their validity is not to be impugned by a provision which permits these trust to be implemented, in part, by being placed at the disposition of private individuals.
1 Citers



 
 Gilmour v Coats; HL 1949 - [1949] AC 426; [1949] UKHL 1; [1949] 1 All ER 848
 
In Re Strakosch [1949] 1 Ch 529
1949

Lord Greene MR
Charity
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 class, the gift must be not only for the benefit of the community but beneficial in a way which the law regards as charitable. In order to satisfy the latter it must be within the 'spirit and intendment' of the preamble of the Statute of Elizabeth. That preamble set out what were then regarded as purposes which should be treated as charitable in law. It is obvious that as time passed and conditions changed common opinion as to what was properly covered by the word charitable also changed. This has been recognized by the courts as the most cursory examination of the cases shows. In order to be within the spirit and intendment of the preamble we take it that one must find something charitable in the same sense as the recited purposes are charitable. Lord Macnaghten's fourth class is represented in the preamble by the repair of bridges, etc., and possibly by the maintenance of Houses of Correction. This negatives any suggestion that charitable must be confined to the poor (Verge v. Somerville).
We have come to the conclusion that though undoubtedly of benefit to the community the purpose under consideration is not 'charitable' in the sense in which the benefits to the community instanced in the preamble are charitable. The benefit, as we understand it, does not have to be in any way ejusdem generis with the recited purposes but it has to be charitable in the same sense."
Income Tax Act 1918 37(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Oxford Group v Inland Revenue Commissioners; 1949 - [1949] 2 All ER 537
 
Scarisbrick's Will Trusts, In re [1950] 1 All ER 143; [1950] Ch 226
1950
ChD
Roxburgh J
Wills and Probate, Charity
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 charitable, or whether the gift was one under which the capital was immediately distributable among the objects, in which case the gift was not a charity.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [1951] AC 297 HL(E); [1950] UKHL 2; [1951] 1 All ER 31
13 Dec 1950
HL
Lord Simonds, Lord Normand, Lord Oaksey, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord MacDermott
Charity
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."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Scarisbrick's Will Trusts, Cockshott v Public Trustee [1951] 1 All ER 822 CA; [1951] Ch 622
1951
CA
Jenkins LJ
Wills and Probate, Charity
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 . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v The Imam of Bury Park Mosque, Luton and others ex parte Suliman Ali; ChD 30-Aug-1951 - Unreported, 30 Aug 1951
 
Royal College of Surgeons of England v National Provincial Bank Ltd [1952] AC 631
1952
HL

Charity
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.
1 Citers



 
 Inland Revenue Commissioners v Glasgow Police Athletic Association; HL 9-Mar-1953 - [1953] UKHL 1; [1953] AC 380
 
Inland Revenue v City of Glasgow Police Athletic Association [1953] UKHL TC - 34 - 76; 34 TC 76
9 Mar 1953
HL

Income Tax, Charity
HL Income Tax - Exemption - Charitable purposes - Police Athletic Association - Finance Act, 1921 (11 & 12 Geo. V, c. 17), Section 30 (1) (c); Finance Act, 1927 (17 & 18 Geo. V, c. 10), Section 24.
Finance Act 1921 30(1)(c) - Finance Act 1927 24
[ Bailii ]
 
Re Sanders [1954] Ch 265
1954

Harman J
Charity
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 beneficiaries was not limited to those who in terms of the law of charity were poor.
1 Citers



 
 Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners; CA 1954 - [1954] 1 Ch 672
 
Inland Revenue v Broadway Cottages [1954] EWCA Civ 4; [1955] Ch 20; (1954) 33 ATC 305; [1954] 3 All ER 120; [1954] TR 295; [1954] 3 WLR 438
26 Jul 1954
CA
Singleton, Jenkins, Hodson LJJ
Income Tax, Charity
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.
Income Tax Act 1918 37(1)(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Morelle Ltd v Waterworth [1955] 1 QB 1
1955
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Charity
The court was asked (1) Was the assurance to the Plaintiff Company of the unexpired residue of a term of years in house property in London an assurance of land in mortmain within the terms of section 1 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888? (2) If so, was the term so assured automatically forfeited to the Crown by virtue of the same subsection? Held: Both questions were answered affirmatively.
Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888
1 Citers



 
 Baddeley (Trustees of the Newtown Trust) v Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 17-Feb-1955 - [1955] UKHL 1; [1955] AC 572; [1955] 1 All ER 525

 
 Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 1956 - [1956] AC 39; [1955] 3 All ER 97; 36 TC 126; [1955] UKHL TC - 36 - 126
 
Re Royal Society's Charitable Trusts [1956] 1 Ch 87
1956

Vaisey J
Charity
The Society, a charitable company regulated by statute, requested that it be permitted inter alia, to consolidate various different trust funds of which it was trustee for investment and accounting purposes. Held: The application did not come within s 57 of the 1925 Act or alternatively under what he called "the rather ill-defined scope of the court’s general jurisdiction". However, he held that the Court had power under its special jurisdiction relating to charities to consider the applications. The conferment of a limited power did not give rise to an implied prohibition against any action outside that limit.
Trustee Act 1925 57
1 Citers


 
Milner v Staffordshire Congregational Union (Inc) [1956] Ch 275; [1956] 2 WLR 556; [1956] 1 All ER 494
1956
ChD
Dankwerts J
Land, Charity
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.
Charitable Trusts Amendment Act 1855 29
1 Citers



 
 Berry v St Marylebone Borough Council; CA 1957 - [1958] Ch 406; [1957] 3 All ER 677
 
In re Whitworth Art Gallery Trusts [1958] Ch 461
1958


Charity

1 Citers


 
In re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300
1958

Harman J
Charity

Charitable Trusts (Validation) Act 1954
1 Citers


 
Re Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners' Royal Benevolent Society [1959] Ch 220
1959
ChD
Danckwerts J
Charity
The court approved a scheme conferring wider powers of investment than those authorised by the statute incorporating the charity: "It is said on behalf of persons interested in the charity that the court is empowered to make a scheme to authorize a wider range of investments in this case, because the matter is not really covered by the very limited power of investment contained in section 11 of the Act of 1850. On the other hand, it is said on behalf of the Attorney-General that that is not the right way to construe section 11 of the Act of 1850: that although in form it is a positive permission, it involves a negative prohibition and, therefore, to allow any wider power of investment of the trust funds would be to attempt to alter the statute by "a stroke of .. the pen" and the court has no power to do that. The cases to which I have been referred are far from clear, but I think the general principle which emerges is that the court cannot alter the said statute by a stroke of the pen and cannot therefore direct anything which is inconsistent with the terms of the Act of Parliament in question. The conclusion which I reach is that to allow a wider power of investment is to confer additional powers of investment and is not, therefore, inconsistent with but is in aid of and supplemental to the powers of investment which are conferred by section 11 of the Act. On that view it would be open to the court to allow what has been done by settling a scheme conferring the necessary powers."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
General Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council [1959] 2 WLR 308
1959
HL
Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Morton, Lord Somervell
Rating, Charity
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 object the advancement of nursing and not the advancement of the nursing profession and the exemption as a charity was available.
Lord Keith of Avonholm said: "In my opinion, the only way by which the main objects of the Appellant Council can be ascertained is by looking at the objects as expressed in the Act. It is by the language used that Parliament has expressed its intention, and it is with the objects for which the Council was immediately and directly constituted that we are, in my opinion, concerned and not with the results of its activities at second or third hand."
1 Citers



 
 Re Endacott; CA 12-Oct-1959 - [1960] Ch 232; [1959] EWCA Civ 5; [1959] 3 All ER 562; [1959] 3 WLR 799

 
 Royal College of Nursing v Borough of St Marylebone; CA 27-Oct-1959 - [1959] EWCA Civ 1; [1959] 3 All ER 663; [1959] 1 WLR 1077
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.