Charitable purposes trust contains a very beneficial factor for the community and thats the reason why

it get some extra special treatment these trust are established for specific purposes and not to just
benefit particular beneficiary the aim of this essay is to do compassion of law related to charitable trust
and private purposes trust. And it will also be discussed whether the law regarding charitable purpose
needs any reform in order to acomodate various principle .

New para

Defining charity is always been a dificult task charity was first defined under preamble of the statue of
the charitable uses act act 1601. Moreover in the case of (. Commision for the special of income tax v
pamsel ) lord macnaghten provided categories to ascertained whether the purpose is charitable or not.
The categories included headers such as ( relief of poverty ) ( advancement of education) ( advancement
of religion) and other purposes which ultimately benefits community these categories does not give
specific clear definition therefore in the case of ( Scottish v glasscow 1986) lord wilberforce define it as a
categories of convience

The charitable act diminished the charitable user act 1601. According to charities act 2011 a trust will
only be considered charitable if it satify section 2 (1) (b) by falling with in sanction 3 (1) include 13
headers including 4 previous. This act has enlarged the scope of purpose that can be considered
charitable to benefit the community for example it includes new headers such as advancement of
culture, art and human rights. Advancement of immature sports etc this clearly shows the law regarding
charities is evolving drastically as the additional categories has been introduced to give benefit to
general public in current times.

New para

Taking in to consideration the first header of poverty it can be asserted that nature wise the trust for
relief of poverty can be defined as as relative and not absolute . The case of ( re coulthrust) illustrates
that poverty does not refer to ( Dire poverty) although according to the case of ( IRC v baddeley) it is
crystal clear that for a creation of trust in this regard it is necessary that the trust aim to deminish a
need hence trust made for needy and poor are valid if is beneficial for the poor and as per ( RE GWYON
and re sanders will) rich should be excluded moreover law provides that term poverty overtime has
been determined according to the changing social world as in( RE DE cartert 1933 it is stipulated that a
individual would be considered poor if he fails to maintain modest standards of living for himself and
people who are dependent on him

New
Moving to the second header ( EDUCATION) historically any trust established for the dissemination of
the usefull knowledge which benefits the general public is considered valid this was illustrated in the
case of ( re shaw) moreover in the case of ( re hopkins will trust) a trust established to find out
shakespeare bacon manuscript. Was considered valid by lord wilberforce as charitable. In this case
wilberforce stated that the concept of education should be extended beyond teaching

Trust for the education covers various purposes such as maintenance of museums. ( re pinon)
production of dictionary ( re stinford ) and even any research work which eventually benefits the
researching community even in the case of ( RE DELus) trust established for the appreciation of musical
work was considered charitable under the advancement of education in ( royal choral society v irc) trust
created for artistic education was considered valid under advancement of education

New para

With regards to header of religion in ( RE south place etical society dillon j asserted that essential
characteristics of a religion is worship and faith but due to evolving society some more categories has
been added under this header. It example can be seen in case law . In the case of ( watson ) trust
established for continuation for the work of god was valid. Moreover in ( Middleton v clitheoro) a trust
established for choir was considered valid. Further in ( funnel v stewart) trust created for faith healing
was considered charitable purpose

The other purposes header comes under charities act 2011 s 3m this header trys to cover a purpose
which does not come under other twelve charitable headers but any trust which is covered under s 3 m
it purposes must be charitable and for public benefit this header of charity is considered very ambiguous
as it can cover any trust purpose if valid justification can be given between it and existing charitable
purposes

according to the general principle trust must be established for the benefit of ascertainable individuals.
It basically aids the beneficiary to have a locus standi in so that courts may order decree of
performance in beneficiary favar against the trustee. the foundation of this principle was laid down in
the case of ( Morice v Bishop of Durham ). In this case, William grant Mr suggested that there should be
a definite object for each and every noncharitable trust. Furthermore, this principle was also confirmed
in the case of (RE endcott) by lord evershred according to him if the trust is noncharitable it will only be
enforced if the beneficiary are ascertainable, the law does not acknowledge a trust which is intended
for a purpose as the benefits which will arise from the trust can not be allocated to the particular
individual as it is mentioned above purpose trust will be considered void due to lack of beneficiaries,
therefore, trust assets will go back to settler estate. Charitable trust are enforceable by the attorney
general but due to lack of beneficiary private purpose trust are not enforceable this was illustrated by
Roxburgh in re astore settlements trust

The certain exception of beneficiary principle where private purpose trust are considered valid is where
the trust is for maintenance of animal, construction of monuments, prayer of masses, these exceptions
are also known as ( re endcott) exceptions. In the case of patingall v patingall a private purpose trust for
the maintenance of specific animals were upheld by courts similarly in the case of ( RE DEANS) settler
left 750 per anum for the maintenance of his horse and hounds for their life time but it was a violation
of perpetuity rule courts declare the trust valid for 21 years so the trust full fill the requirement of
perpetuity RULE

IN THE CASE OF ( musset v bingle ) trust for the construction of monuments was considered valid, in this
case, the executor left 300 pounds for the creation of monuments. the court’s further state that any
private purpose trust which falls within perpetuity period will be considered valid similarly In the case
of re hooper trust established for graves was considered valid by courts

Now moving to a third exception ( trust for saying of masses) . historically any trust for saying of masses
was considered invalid but according to the case of re Hetherington now these types of trust can be
considered valid as private purpose trust. According to parry this are of law is problematic as the courts
are doing extensive efforts in order to uphold these trust.

In re denleys trust deed another example of how courts have overridden the beneficiary principle can be
seen. In this Case trust for land maintenance which is going to be used for recreational activities
primarily for benefit of the employees of the company was considered valid as private purpose trust by
goff j. the main reason behind the acceptance of this trust was that the trust was benefiting the
individuals directly or indirectly in some way