lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Charitable Trust

Law of Trust (Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Contents for Charitable Trust

1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................2
2.0 Requirements of Charitable Trust....................................................................................................3
Element 1 - Must be Charitable in Nature............................................................................................3
Nature and Purpose...........................................................................................................................3
A. Relief of Poverty............................................................................................................................4
B. Advancement of Education............................................................................................................7
1. Research....................................................................................................................................7
2. Artistic Education.......................................................................................................................8
3. Sports.......................................................................................................................................10
4. Politics......................................................................................................................................11
C. Political Purpose..........................................................................................................................13
D. Advancement of Religion.............................................................................................................14
E. Beneficial to the Community......................................................................................................17
1. Animal......................................................................................................................................18
2. Recreational & Social...............................................................................................................19
3. Aged and health.......................................................................................................................20
4. Localities..................................................................................................................................21
Element 2 – Must be for public benefit..............................................................................................22
Public Benefit..................................................................................................................................22
Poverty............................................................................................................................................23
Education.........................................................................................................................................23
Religion............................................................................................................................................25
Other Purposes...............................................................................................................................26
Element 3 – Exclusively Charitable.....................................................................................................27
THE ‘and’ and ‘or PRINCIPLE.....................................................................................................27
The ‘OR’ Principle.........................................................................................................................27
The ‘AND’ Principle.......................................................................................................................28
3.0 Ancillary/incidental Non – Charitable Purpose.......................................................................28

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

1.0 Introduction
Charitable trust is an exception to the rule that trusts must have beneficiaries.

Advantages of a charitable trust:

a) Relaxed requirements of certainty of objects.

(i) Relaxed test of certainty of purposes as long as general charitable intention clear.
(ii) Public benefit test replaces private trusts certainty requirement as regards
beneficiaries.
b) Relaxed application of perpetuity rules.
(i) Charitable trusts may exist in perpetuity but remoteness rules generally apply to
vesting of property in charity trustees.
c) Fiscal advantages – numerous tax advantages

Charitable trusts - express trusts which exist for a purpose rather than for identifiable beneficiaries.

In Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 209 at 222, Dixon and Evatt JJ
stated:

A charitable trust is a trust for a purpose, not for a person. The objects of ordinary trusts are
individuals, either named or answering a description, whether presently or at some future time. To
dispose of property for the fulfillment of ends considered beneficial to the community is an entirely
different thing from creating equitable estates and interests and limiting them to beneficiaries. In this
fundamental distinction sufficient reason may be found for many of the differences in treatment of
charitable and ordinary trusts.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE CHARITABLE TRUST AND PRIVATE TRUST?

No Charitable Trust Private Trust

1. public charitable trusts do not require Private trust, where if it fails to fulfill the
certainty of beneficiary or objects three principles of certainties it will be
declared as void
“charity” is the ideal object. AG will have the
right to enforce it. Only objects can enforce the trust.
2. No need to express a particular mode of Need to express a particular mode of
enforcement of the trust. enforcement of the trust.

If mode of enforcement cannot be carried out Cy – pres is not available in private trust.
as specified by settlor, court would allow a
scheme to carry out the charitable trust
known as the cy-pres doctrine.
3. Charitable trust is given certain tax and fiscal There is no certain tax and fiscal
advantages; which are not available to private advantages.
trusts.

The income of a charitable institution is

exempted from income tax.

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

2.0 Requirements of Charitable Trust

Element 1 - Must be Charitable in Nature

Nature and Purpose

Halsbury’s Law of England (4th Ed) at para 502

To be charitable a purpose must satisfy certain tests: it must either fall in the Preamble to the ancient
statute of Elizabeth I (also referred to as the Statute of Charitable Uses or the Charitable Uses
Act 1601) or within one of the four categories of charitable purposes laid down by Lord McNaghten
and derived from the Preamble, it must be within the ancient statute, either directly or by analogy
with decided cases on the same point, or it must have been declared to be charitable by some other
statute. In addition, it must be both beneficial and available to a sufficient section of the community.

A matter of law and charitable status does not depend on the motive of the donor no the
donor’s own opinion as to what is charitable / not is relevant.

Court is the one to decide whether a particular object / purpose is charitable / not.

WHY THERE IS NO STATUTORY DEFINITION OF CHARITY?

Not to unduly restrict what matters could be brought under the meaning of charity. To ascertain can
be either based on the Preamble to Statute of Elizabeth/ Charitable Uses Act 1601 - Within spirit or
intendment of preamble.

There are four heads of charity; relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of
religion, other purposes beneficial to community. Thus, trust can be considered charitable either by
direct reference to those purposed stated or by analogy to them or purposes accepted by analogy to
them as charitable.

Charity means a benevolent act :

compassionate/generous intention + action.

Legally, a charity does not cover all benevolent acts.

Must be remembered that the classification is based on convenience sake as charity is a living and
evolving subject according to the needs of society

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

A. Relief of Poverty
Definition of Poverty

The 1601 Act refers to “aged, impotent and poor people”

- not conjunctive.

Poverty - a vague term; may mean different things to different people at different places and time

To be valid as a gift - does not require that the persons to be benefited should be destitute, or even
on the border of destitution

May legally covers a person who does not have enough

Need not to be expressly stated as – can uphold gifts for the poor which are expressed in general or
indefinite language.

Sir R. Evershed in RE COULTHURST 1951 Ch 661:- “….Poverty, of course, does not mean destitution. It
is a word of wide and somewhat indefinite import …. as meaning persons who have to ‘go short’ in
the ordinary acceptation of that term, due regard being had to their status in life and so forth.”

RE COULTHURST 1951

Testator directed that the income of a trust fund was to be used for the benefit of such widows and
orphans of deceased officers or ex-officers of a bank, as the Bank considered most deserving of
assistance.

Held: Although the beneficiaries were not poor in the sense of being destitute; they were not as
well-endowed as other persons being in the same class they belonged. So it was a valid charitable
gift.

IRC v BADDELEY 1955 1 AER 523

Lord Simmonds set the limit on the extent of comfort and lifestyle that determines ‘legal’ poverty: “…
There may be a good charity for the relief of persons who are not in grinding need or utter
destitution …but relief connotes need of some sort, either need for a home, or to provide some
necessity or quasi-necessity, and not merely for an amusement, however healthy.”

A.G. v COMBE 1824

the Court upheld a gift as charitable, with the intention to relieve distress when it was made for the
benefit of widows and orphans of a particular place.

RE DUDGEON 1896 74 Lt 618

Stirling J held :“It appears to me that the cases cited on behalf of the charity do show this, that it is
not necessary to find poverty in so many words but the court will look at whole gift, and if it comes
to the conclusion that the relief of poverty was meant, will give effect to it, though the word
‘poverty’ is not to be found in it…..”

BISCOE v JACKSON 1887 25 Ch.d 460 a gift to establish a soup kitchen in Shoreditch was construed as
a charitable trust to relieve poverty.

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

In Malaysia
Must be intended for persons who are actually poor e.g. dedicated to the ‘poor’, ‘indigent’ and
destitute.

RE SYED ALKAFF 1923 2 MC 38

A gift to distribute money among ‘such blood relatives of the testator in indigent circumstances’, to
‘distribute the usual meal or rice to the poor on Friday’ were considered as charitable purposes even
though the trust fails for not being exclusively charitable.

RE HADJEE ESMAIL (1911) 12 SSLR 74

Purposes such as ‘alms for the poor’ and ‘maintenance for relatives who might be in indigent
circumstances’ are considered as charitable however the trust failed for uncertainty of subject-
matter of the trust.

ESTATE OF HJ DAENG TAHIRA BT DAENG TEDELLEH [1948] MLJ 62

trusts for ‘the burial of any poor Muslim’ and for the yearly provision of a feast (kandorie) for the
poor persons of the Mohammedan religion were declared as charitable trust.

RE ALSAGOFF TRUSTS 1956 22 MLJ 244

A gift for the burial and assistance of the poor and a gift for the maintenance and provision of oil or
other means of illumination for Rubad Saadayat Medina (an institution for the relief of poverty) were
upheld.

Requirements of Trusts for the Relief of Poverty

Whatever the definition of poverty used, the gift must be made in terms that would exclude those
who are not poor e.g. persons of ‘moderate means’ and ladies in ‘reduce circumstances’ are upheld.

RE GWYON 1930 1 Ch 255

A gift failed on this ground. A testator, by his will, directed that the residue of his estate should be
held upon trust to establish ‘Gwyon Boys Clothing Foundation’ to provide knickers for the boys on
Farnham district aged between 10 – 15 years. No preference was indicated by the testator for
children of poor parents. Held: by the Court that the gift did not restrict the claimants to poor boys,
thus it could not be for the relief of poverty and so failed as a charity.

‘Working Classes’ does not seem to imply legal poverty; need to look for intention to relieve poverty

HE GREEN & SONS v MINISTER OF HEALTH (NO.2) 1948 1 kb 34

Denning LJ was of the view that the term was an ‘anachronism’ not synonymous with poverty.

RE SANDERS WILL TRUSTS

A gift was made ‘to provide or assist in providing dwelling for the working classes and their families’
resident in the area of Pembroke Dock.

Harman J held that it was not charitable as the expression “working classes” did not indicate poor
persons.

Working class: implied intention to relieve poverty in RE NIYAZI’S WILL TRUST 1978 3 AER 785.

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

RE NIYAZI’S WILL TRUST 1978 3 AER 785.

Facts: Gift of £15,000 to be used “for the construction of or as contribution towards a working men’s
hostel in Famagusta, Cyprus –valid. Note : considered as a borderline case as it was decided based on
its own special circumstances taking into account the small amount of the gift and the chronic
housing shortage.

RE DRUMMOND [1914]

Holiday expenses of work people invalid

RE LUCAS 1922 2 Ch 52

A gift of £5 “to the oldest respectable inhabitants in Guncille per week” was held to be charitable as
it only involves a very small amount that only the poor would benefit from it.

Trusts for the Relief of Poverty: the Aged

No specific age limit has been set

From decided cases - the sixties age group is the minimum.

RE GLYN’S WILL TRUST 1960

A gift was made towards the building and maintaining houses for British women from the working
class, if over the age of sixty. Held: gift is a charitable one, although persons described as members of
a working class does not necessarily means poor, but it was upheld on the point of helping the aged.

Reason: in line with the Preamble the Statute of Elizabeth I; the phrase aged, impotent and poor :
disjunctively

RE COTTAM 1955 1 WLR 1299

A trust to build flats for persons over 65 years fell within this head of charity.

RE ROBINSON 1951 Ch 198

A gift for the old people of Hazel Slade, Hednesford who were over 65 years of age was also upheld
as charitable.

Trusts for the Relief of Poverty: the Impotent

Refers to some infirmity or failing such as blindness, paralysis etc or addiction to drink or drugs

Gifts for the benefit of such persons or institutions which cater for these problems are charitable.

RE LEWIS 1955 Ch 104

a bequest of £100 each to 10 blind girls and boys in Tottenham was held to be charitable as it was
relief for the impotent.

RE VAGLIANO 1905 WN 179

a gift made to an asylum was considered to be charitable too.

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

B. Advancement of Education
According to the Preamble:

“the maintenance of schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities and the
educational and preferment of orphans.”

Current Education Scope

Education includes a wide range of object of an educational and cultural nature. Gifts which were
upheld as charitable are aimed at teaching either directly or indirectly.

However due to the expansion of the meaning of ‘education’, there are difficulties in ascertaining
gifts which do not have ‘teaching’ (directly / indirectly) as their main object.

Incorporated Council For Law Reporting For England & Wales V Att-General 1972 Ch 73

Buckley LJ said the term now applied “to the improvement of a useful branch of human knowledge
and its public dissemination.”

Decided cases - that the word ‘education’ is not limited to teaching ; not limited to classroom or pure
academic teaching per se.

Used in wide sense; looking for dissemination or imparting of knowledge includes gifts to particular
educational institutions, such as schools and universities, which, coming under the preamble, are
prima facie charitable

Educational trusts can embrace specific purposes which are related, sometimes loosely, to education

1. Research
E.g., search for or research of original manuscripts and other items of scientific or historical interest

Subject of research must itself be useful and that the gift must make some provision for the
information gained to be disseminated and made available for study.

To be cha for the advancement of education, not merely the acquisition of knowledge without
dissemination to public.

RE HOPKINS WILL TRUST 1964 3 AER 46

A gift of money was given to Francis Bacon Society to search for Bacon-Shakespeare manuscripts.
The object was to discover documentary proof that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Francis
Bacon and to discover the original manuscript of these plays.

Held: Charitable as the results of the research would be published to the world which was directed to
improve the literary heritage.

Wilberforce J also laid down the broad requirements of a research which could be considered as
charitable:- “The word education must be used in a wide sense, certainly extending beyond teaching,
and the requirement is that, in order to be charitable, research must either be of educational value to
the researcher or must be so directed as to lead to something which will pass into the store of
educational material, or so as to improve the sum of communicable knowledge in an area which

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

education may cover education in this last context extending to the formation of literary taste and
appreciation….”

Requirements for a research to be a trust

MCGOVERN v A.G. 1981 3 AER 493

Slade J clarified research to be cha as follows:

1) Only if: -

(a)the subject matter of the proposed research is a useful object of study; and

(b) it is contemplated that the knowledge acquired as a result of the research will be
disseminated to others, and

(c) the trust is for the benefit of the public, or a sufficiently important section of the public

2) Unless provided otherwise, the court will be readily inclined to construe a trust for research as
importing subsequent dissemination of the results thereof

3) not necessary to have/involve a conventional teacher-student situation or conventional education

style.

RE SHAW 1957 1 AER

Restricted approach to research. Gift of money by George Bernard Shaw, for the development of a
forty-letter alphabet and the translation of one his plays ‘Androcles and the Lion’ into this new
alphabet.

Held: not charitable on the ground that if the object be merely the increase of knowledge, per se,
that is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined will teaching or education. (compare
with RE HOPKINS)

RE BRITISH SCHOOL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAELOGY 1954 1 WLR 546

the Court upheld the gift for the research into Egyptian historical artifacts as charitable

2. Artistic Education
Promotion of artistic pursuits which are of artistic merits may fall under the education.

Applies to trust for specific artistic purposes and not for promotion of it per se as it was too wide and
too vague

ROYAL CHORAL SOCIETY v IRC 1943 2 AER 101

Lord Greene stated: “In my opinion, a body of persons established for purpose of raising the artistic
state of the country is established for charitable purpose.”

ROYAL CHORAL SOCIETY v IRC 1943 2 AER 101

Facts: the Society had its object “to form and maintain a choir in order to promote the practice and
performance of choral works” in London.

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

The question arose whether it was established for charitable purposes.

Held: Whether a particular body is established for charitable purposes is a question of law and it
cannot be a matter of fact. As the Society was established for the promotion of aesthetic education.
Its objects were charitable and its income was exclusively applied for the purpose of charity.

Lord Greene, MR stated: - “I protest against that narrow conception of education when one is dealing
with aesthetic education. A body of persons established for the purpose of raising the artistic taste
of the country and established by an appropriate document which confines than to that purpose, is
established for educational purposes, because the education of artistic taste is one of the most
important things in the development of a civilized human being.”

Artistic purposes may also include social graces

RE SHAW’s WILL TRUST 1952 1 AER 49

Where the wife of George Bernard Shaw left money for what was described as a sort of finishing
school for the Irish people, where “self control, oratory, deportment and the arts of personal
confidence” were to be taught.

Vaisey J concluded that the gift was charitable, stating that education included ‘the promotion and
encouragement of those arts and graces of life which are, after all, the finest and best part of human
character.’

In evaluating the artistic merits of an artistic education, the court may seek expert opinion on the
matter – intention of donor irrelevant

RE DELIUS 1957 1 AER 49

The widow of the composer Frederick Delius, by will, gave her residuary estate to her trustees on
trusts for the advancement of her husband’s musical works.

Q: was it a valid charitable trust.

It was not in dispute that the standard of Delius’s work was so high that the question as to his
adequacy as a composer did not arise. The issue was decided subjectively by the Court.

Held: the purpose of the trust was to spread the knowledge and appreciation of Delius’s work
throughout the world and the fact that it was also to enhance the reputation of Delius did not
prevent it being a charitable trust.

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

RE PINION 1965 Ch. 85

A testator made a gift to national Trust of his studio and its contents, a collection of furniture,
paintings China and other objects to trustees, to be used as a museum to display his collection of
arts. Experts were of the opinion that the collections were virtually worthless and of no artistic merit
what so ever. As the display of this collection could not be regarded as of any educational value.

The Court held that the gift failed as charity. Harman LJ stated that he could ‘conceive of no useful
object to be served by foisting upon the public this mass of junk.” 🤣🤣🤣

3. Sports
Promotion of sports per se is not regarded as charitable, however if it is carried out as part of the
activities of schools and universities, it can be included under advancement of education.

IRC v MCMULLEN 1945 Ch. 16 per Lord Hailsham:

“education …when it is applied to the young … it is complex and varied …. it is a picture of a balanced
and systematic process of training, instruction and practice containing both spiritual, moral, mental
and physical elements.’

Therefore - Sports which forms part of the normal educational process can be said to be within this
heading, as long as it will benefit the public.

Physical education, games and sports, other extracurricular activities such as field trips are all
considered to be within the ambit of education, provided that they are for the young, who it is
assumed are still undergoing a process of education and development.

Harmful sport activities – can be excluded from education.

IRC v MCMULLEN

A trust for the promotion of association football or other games and sports in British schools and
universities was upheld as charitable. The aim of the settlor was the promote the physical education
and development; it is education in a wide.

RE MARIETTE 1915 2 Ch 284

A gift of £1000 was given to Aldenham School for the purpose of building squash courts and to
provide for prizes in some school athletic sports. Held: it was charitable, for the development of the
body and mind of boys aged 10-19 years.

RE NOTTAGE 1895 2 Ch 649

10

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

A gift to purchase a perpetual trophy for yacht racing was held not to be charitable as it only
promotes sports only

RE CLIFFORD 1911 : Where a gift was made to aid angling was refused charitable status.

RE DUPREE 1945 Ch. 16

A sum of £5000 which was left to established an annual chess tournament for boys and young men
under 21 was upheld as charitable. Vaisey J upheld the gift but warned against slippery slopes i.e., to
consider such anomalous cases i.e., scrabble, draughts which are towards the improvement of
mental ability of young people, in view of their own peculiar facts.

RE WEBBER 1954 1 WLR 1500

A gift for the furtherance of boy scout’s movement was upheld as charitable.

4. Politics
Courts are hostile to political purposes trust and trusts for the dissemination of political propaganda
under the guise of education are not charitable.

Educational charities are restrained from using their resources for political purposes.

RE HOPKINSON 1949 1 AER 346

Vaisey J warned that “political propaganda masquerading as education is not education for

the purpose of charity. In this case gifts were made to ‘for the advancement of adult education in
lines with Labor Party policies’ was considered as gifts made to political parties thus not charitable.

BOWMAN v SECULAR SOCIETY LTD 1917 AC 406

Lord Parker Stated the general position as follows: - “A trust for the attainment of political objects has
always been held invalid, not because it is illegal for everyone is at liberty to advocate or promote by
any lawful means a change in the law, but because the Court has no means of judging whether a
proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit, and therefore cannot say that a
gift to secure the change is a charitable gift.”

The Society objects were the abolition of religious tests, the disestablishment of the Church, the
secularization of education and the alteration of the law touching religion or marriage or the
observance of the Sabbath.

11

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Held: objects were political as they were aimed at changing the law and the court had no means of
judging if these were for the public benefit. (a case where a political object was guised as under
advancement of education and religion)

Gifts were made to political parties under the guise of furthering of education – not
charitable.

RE BUSHNELL 1975 1 All ER 721 ChD

Gifts by testator ‘for the advancement and propagation of the teaching of Socialized medicine to
public and personal health”, to be done by way of lectures and pamphlets.

Held: that as the testator was trying to promote his own theory of socialized medicine and not
mainly to educate the public, it was not charitable.

RE KOEPPLER’S WILL TRUST 1986 Ch 423

A gift was made by the testator to “Wilton Park” which was a center for discussing of matters of
international relations with political themes, which is open to academicians and the interested
public, but without getting involved in the political scenario.

H: charitable.

Educational charities are also restrained from using their funds for political purposes.

BALDRY v FENTUCK 1972 2 AER 81

A registered charity, Sussex University Students Union was restrained from spending money on a
campaign to restore free school milk as this was regarded as an attempt to challenge government
policy, thus is regarded by the courts as political and not charitable.

WEBB v O’DOHERTY 1991

The Times, 11 February an injunction was granted by the Court to restrain a student’s union from
spending money in support of a campaign against Gulf war.

Hoffman J made a clear distinction between the discussion of political issues which could be a
legitimate educational activity and charitable; and campaigning in the sense of seeking to influence
public opinion on political matters which cannot be charitable.

Research + politics – to be cha. must aim at objectivity and balance in the method of
conducting research projects, and in publishing the research the aim must be to inform
and educate the public rather than to influence political attitudes.

12

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

C. Political Purpose
MCGOVERN v A.G. 1981 3 AER 493 Slade J set out the reasons for Courts not to allows a trust which
has among its objects, matters which are essentially political as charitable and the guidelines as to
what are considered as trusts for political purposes. He stated:

i. even if the purposes falls within the spirit of Preamble of Statute of Elizabeth 1; a trust for political
purposes falling within the spirit of Lord Parker’s pronouncement in BOWMAN’s case can never be
regarded as being for the public benefit in the manner which the law regards as charitable.

ii. Trust for political purposes …. include (inter alia) trust of which a direct or principal purpose is
either: -

- To further the interests of a political party, or

- To procure changes in the law of the country, or
- To procure changes in the law of a foreign country
- To procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of government
authorities in his country, or in a foreign country

Reasons for refusing - court will not have the adequate means to judge whether a proposed change
in law is for public benefit; court would risk prejudicing its reputation for political impartiality, if it
promoted political objects; it must still decide a case on the principle that the law is right as it stands
since to do otherwise would usurp the function of the legislature.

Organizations which are set up to procure changes in the law or has as one of their objects a charge
in law and it sole aim is changes in the law then it will be refused charitable status

NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY v IRC 1948 AC 31

If however the organization only presses for changes in law as a matter incidental to its main
purposes, it may then still retain its charitable status.

Each case is a question of facts in itself

13

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

D. Advancement of Religion
 For the advancement of religion, must be religious in a sense acceptable by the court.
 no comprehensive definition of religion.  Religion involves spiritual belief, faith and belief in a
God or Gods
 Must also promote spiritual teaching but it does not mean it only covers mere moral teaching,
ethics or the philosophy of the nature of man.
 Ethics per se did not form religion although religion is broad enough to cover many aspects of
ethical practices.

Meaning of religion - ‘belief’ in’ the higher unseen power which is Divine.

CHURCH OF THE NEW FAITH V COM OF PAYROLL TAX

(Australia) defines religion as:

1. belief in supernatural being, thing or principle

2. code of conduct to give effect to belief

BOWMAN v SECULAR SOCIETY, Lord Parker - monotheistic belief was an essential qualification of
religion.

Definition of ‘religion’ was provided by Mason CJ and Brennan J in Church of the New Faith v
Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax (Vic) (1983) 154 CLR 120 at 136;

“[F]or the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in supernatural Being,
Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that
belief, though canons of conduct which offend against ordinary laws are outside the area of
immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion”

RE SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY 1980 3 AER 918, Dillon J:

“Religion as I see it, is concerned with man’s relations with Gods, and ethics are concerned with
man’s relations with man. The two are not the same… It seems to me that the two essential
attributes of religion are faith and worship: faith in a God and worship of that God. The Oxford
English Dictionary gives as one of the definitions of religion;

(i) A particular system of faith and worship,

(ii) Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny and
as being entitled to obedience, reverence and worship.”

14

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Here the society was formed for the study and dissemination of ethical principles.

Examples of valid trusts:

 Trusts for Buildings, Grounds and Cemeteries

 Trusts for Prayers, Masses and Ceremonies
 Gifts to Religious Office Bearers
 Other religion - as long as its purposes are beneficial to the community and not devoid of all
morality, it will be considered charitable.

NEVILLE ESTATES v MADDEN 1962 Ch 832:

“As between different religions, the law stands neutral, but it assumes that any religion is at least
likely to be better than none.”

England - Buddhist and Hindu religions have been granted charitable status by the Charity
Commissions

Australian High Court has accepted Scientology Church of New Faith as a religion capable of enjoying
charitable privileges.

Essential - must advance some religious doctrine either directly and indirectly. It need not be
numerically strong / many in order to qualify for the status. What is necessary to show is that it is a
genuinely held belief or doctrine.

Cases

THORNTON v HOWE (1862), a trust for the publication of the ‘sacred writing’ of Joanne Southgate,
who claimed that she was with child by the Holy Ghost and would give birth to a new Messiah was
upheld as charitable.

UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS v HOLBORN BOROUGH COUNCIL
1957 1 WLR 1090

freemasonry was held non-charitable as it did not advance religion but instead required its members
to believe in a Supreme Creator and live a good moral life.

Donovan J:- “To advance religion means to promote it, to spread its message even wider among
mankind; to take some positive steps to sustain and increase religious belief and these things are
done in a variety of way which is described as pastoral and missionary.”

15

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

RE WATSON 1973 3 AER 678, a trust was established to publish book and articles by Hobbs, a
leader of a very small non-denominational Group of Christian. Although the group was very small
and on expert evidence him work was of no value, the members were sincere in their belief thus
charitable.

A.G v THIRPOOREE SOONDEREE 1808-1884 1 KY 377 the court upheld a gift of land for the
benefit of a Hindu temple as religious and charitable gift however a gift of $200 to a named idol in
the temple failed to take effect as a charitable trust.

RE LOW KIM PONG’s TRUST SETTLEMENTS 1938 MLJ 119

the court held that a gift of land to a Buddhist priest for the purpose of erecting a temple of worship
and to maintain an orchard to be used for the purposes of the temple, as charitable.

TITULAR ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF K.L. vs CHAIRMAN KLANG TOWN COUNCIL the high
court ruled that a church is clearly a place of religious worship within the definition under PEMSEL’s
case

Purposes incidental / related to the main activity of advancement of religion will also be charitable
for e.g. for the upkeep and maintenance of religious officers /priests not beneficially or to him
personally, but as to the holder of the office / position – such gifts are considered to be charitable
and he is expected to apply the money for the advancement of religion.

Kena cari mas

A.G v STEPNEY 1804, a trust for distribution of Bibles and other religious books – charitable

 RE CLERGY SOCIETY 1856, gifts made to missionary societies eg the Church Missionary
Society – charitable

 A.G v CHESTER (1785) – to establish a bishopric

 A.G v SPARKS (1753) – to provide for a clergyman’s salary

 A.G v PARKER (1747) – to provide a pension for a clergyman

16

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

To maintain places of worships which were upheld-

RE VAUGHAN (1886) – for the churchyard or burial ground. Gifts to religious officials is
subjected to whether the gift is given to the person itself or to the office he is holding. If it is
to his office – it is charitable as he is required to use the gift for advancement of religion.

RE GARRARD 1907 1 Ch 382 - a gift to the Vicar and church wardens ‘for such purposes as
they in their sole discretion think fit’ was valid as they would only think of religious
purposes.

RE BAIN 1930 1 Ch 224 – TO THE Vicar ‘for purposes connected’ with the Church –
charitable.

RE SIMSON 1946 Ch 299 – “to Vicar of St. Luke’s Church for his work in the Parish” –
charitable as it means it is to be used for religious work in that particular parish.

RE EASTES 1948 1 AER 536 Ch. – ‘to the Vicar and Churchwarders of St. George’s Church, for
any purposes in connection with the said Church which they may select’ – charitable as the
discretion given did not allow them to use the gift for non-charitable purposes.

FARLEY v WESTMINSTER BANK 1939 AC 430 – a gift was made to the Vicar for ‘Parish work’
– non-charitable because it was not for religious purposes alone but for the assistance and
furtherance of those activity which include many objects which are legally noncharitable.

RE STRATTON 1931 1 Ch 197 – ‘to Vicar of Mortlake to be distributed at his discretion

among such parochial institutions / purposes as he shall select – not-charitable as parochial
institutions were not necessarily religious institution.

E. Beneficial to the Community

Under this grouping - acceptable cha purposes are a great variety of general purposes which are
more or less, conducive to the public good, within the spirit and intendment of the Preamble

Need to refer to changes in social condition

In short – need to satisfy 2 pre-requisite to be valid cha trust:- per Russell LJ in INCORPORATED
COUNCIL FOR LAW REPORTING v AG 1972 Ch 73

1. the purpose in question must be beneficial to the community

2. purpose must fall within sprit of Preamble

17

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

NOT every purpose which is clearly beneficial to the public will be beneficial in a way which the law
considers to be charitable.

Compare between INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING FOR QUEENSLAND (production of

law reports) and CHESTER V RNA - breeding of racing pigeons

AG v NATIONAL PROVINCIAL BANK 1924 AC 2 62 Viscount Cave said:

“Lord McNagthen (in PEMSEL) did not mean that all trusts for purposes beneficial to the community
are charitable, but that there were certain charitable trust which fall within that category.”

Examples of purposes upheld as cha by courts:

 Gifts to a Community/Locality
 Public Works and Beautification Trusts
 Protection of Animals and Wildlife
 Protection from War and Disaster
 Relief of Taxes
 Public Recreation and Sport
 Public Safety and Defence

Note: this grouping are not meant to be exhaustive or definitive but as a guide

1. Animal
Trust for animals generally -can be charitable.

The charitable benefit is - indirect moral benefit to mankind as cruelty to animal was degrading to
man.

RE WEDGEWOOD 1915 1 Ch 113 per Swinfen-Eady J in upholding a secret trust for animal protection
regarded such trust – “tend to promote and encourage kindness towards animals …. And stimulate
humane and generous sentiments in man towards the lower animals, and by this means to promote
feelings of humanity and thus elevate the human race.”

Must either relief suffering to animals or it must be one which will not restrict the public to view /
benefit from these animals.

If to protect animals in isolation from human would lack the necessary benefit to the public i.e. will
not help to elevate mankind morally and not cha

RE GROVE-GRADY 1929 1 Ch 557 - gift was made to a society to provide a sanctuary ‘for the
preservation of all animals, bird or other creatures …. so that they shall be safe from molestation and

18

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

destruction by man’. Held – not cha as does not benefit mankind; as men were not allowed to even
observe them.

Organizations involved in wildlife preservation and nature reserves or sanctuaries for near extinct
animal, flora or fauna can be cha; if set up with environmental element to benefit public even at
limited level.

Gifts made to animal homes and hospital & organizations preventing cruel treatment to animals –
charitable

If the trust for animal would conflict with human interest, the court would decide in favor of human
interest and hold such gifts as non-charitable.

NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY v IRC 1948 AC 31, a trust to abolish vivisection was not
charitable since this would not benefit the public (reduce research).

Cases:

TATHAM v DRUMMOND 1864

In which bequest for the relief and protection of animals taken to be slaughtered was held charitable
so that the gift failed under the mortmain legislation.

for protection of animals from ill-usages, cruelty and suffering – RE MURAWSKI’s WILL TRUST 1971.

2. Recreational & Social

Trusts for sports, per se – a recreational activity not cha unless as part of education.

IRC v MCMULLEN [1981]

A case involving the playing of football at schools and universities. The House, holding that the
Football Asociation Youth Trust was charitable, also made it clear that the legal conception of charity
was not statistic but change with ideas about social values.

Purely recreational pastimes has been refused cha status

IRC v GLASGOW POLICE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 1953 1 A11ER 747, the Association was formed to
provide and arrange sporting activities for members of police force. Objective: ‘to encourage and
promote all forms of athletic sports and general pastimes’.

Held: although it existed to improve the police force’s efficiency, the inclusion of a merely
recreational element was fatal to its charitable status. Furthermore it is for the private advantage of
its members.

19

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

RE GRAY 1925 Ch 362 a trust for the promotion of sport in the army was held as charitable because it
was said to promote the efficiency of public services

In WILLIAMs TRUSTEES v IRC 1947 1 A11ER 513 and IRC v BADDELEY 1955 AC 572, it seemed that if
the social or recreational aspect of a gift is too great it might be refused charitable status

introduction of words such as ‘social and/or recreational’ in a gift / trust appear to make the ambit of
the gift too wide and possibly covering non-charitable purposes – not cha.

Recreational Charities Act 1958 (UK) – identify certain types of gifts for the purposes of recreation as
cha if guideline contained in Sec 1 of the said Act.

 1st foremost the facilities must aim to improve the conditions of life of the beneficiaries and

 2nd the beneficiaries must either need the facilities because of their youth, age, infirmity or
disablement, poverty / social / economic circumstances or must be available to the public at large.

Thus, leisure activities which were harmful though intended to improve the life condition of the
beneficiary is excluded. So also, facilities run for profit with the object of making money or private
sports clubs.

Note: no similar Legislation in Malaysia.

IRC v BADDELEY – there was a trust of certain premises to be used for ‘the promotion of the
religious, social and physical well-being of persons resident in West Ham and Leyton as were or were
likely to become members of the Methodist Church and were of insufficient means to enjoy such
advantages’. Held : the purposes were too vague and wide enough to cover noncharitable objects
and also non-charitable as it lack the public benefit element.

 WILLIAMS TRUSTEE v IRC – is a trust to benefit the Welsh people in London, including a provision
of a place of meeting for ‘promotion of social, moral, spiritual and educational welfare of the Welsh
people. Held: the word ‘social’ did not connote a charitable trust and since charitable objects are
mixed with social aspects – it failed for not being exclusively charitable.

3. Aged and health

Preamble to 1601 Act refers to ‘aged, impotent and poor people’ – disjunctively. If exclude poor from
paying – can be charitable

Gift for health and medicine are prima facie cha as long as the public benefit element can be
satisfied.

20

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

 RE RESCH’s WILL TRUST 1969 1 AC 514 where a private hospital charging fees to its patients were
held to be charitable, not for private profit of the hospital itself but for the running of the hospitals.

 includes ancillary purposes such as providing nurses accommodation or facilities for relatives of
the critically ill.

 promotes health and gifts to hospitals which are not profit motivated – cha

JOSEPH ROWNTREE MEMORIAL TRUST HOUSING ASSOCIATION v AG 1983 1 AER 288, a housing
association was created the purpose of which to build houses the benefit of old people, over the
retirement age, who is in need of dwelling. They were given tenancy of the houses until they paid
70% of the price of the houses. The housing association was held to be charitable as it relief the
‘need’of old people and no major profit was made by it.

4. Localities
trust created for a particular area, town, village, is treated as being for charitable purposes within
that area

 Not applicable if the testator identifies specifies purposes & the purposes is a mixture of
charitable + non-charitable

purposes = non cha.

 Cha - if group / class to benefit is from some defined group within the locality.

 RE SMITH 1932 1 Ch 153 where the gift was ‘to my country, England’. Held: charitable and used
for charitable purposes in England.

HOUSTON v BURNS 1918 337 money was left for public; beneficial or charitable purposes are not
actually charitable – mixture of cha + non cha purposes.

As long as it can be said to fulfil the requirements of public benefit + within spirit & intendment of
preamble – can be considered as cha.

 Need to cater to public who are in need

21

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Element 2 – Must be for public benefit

2nd requirement of a valid charitable trust is that it must promote a public benefit.

If lacks the quality of public benefit - = private trust and it will be void if it fails to satisfy the test of
certainty of objects required for private trusts.

Confers a public benefit even though its nature is such that it is only limited to certain people to be
able to avail themselves of its benefit

E.g., to the blind people of Gong Badak; for children below 15

Public Benefit
The benefit must be for the entire public or for a significant proportion of it. However, the purpose of
the trust need not be carried/effected in the jurisdiction for it to be beneficial to the public.

The requirement for public benefit is required under the PEMSEL’s classification of charitable
purposes EXCEPT for trusts for the relief of poverty.

Public benefit: A question for court to decide based on evidence brought before it. Doubt = non cha.

Element of Beneficial to public must be evident.

GILMOUR V COATS [1946] AC 426: trusts for the advancement of religion have failed where they
have the object of favoring cloistered or contemplative orders of nuns who have little contact with
the outside world

ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY V INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS [1948] AC 31. Trusts established

to stop the practice of vivisection have also failed because there would be an overall detrimental
effect to the public should such experimentation cease.

Who constitutes public?

Must benefit general public or section of the public: meaning the group to benefit are not defined by
a relationship with settlor/named entity either by blood ties, marriage or employment

No nexus between the giver and the recipient

The Compton test (RE COMPTON) has been used to strike down charitable trusts when the potential
recipients of the trust funds have been defined by reference to blood relation, employment or
contract

RE COMPTON [1945] Ch 123. Lord Greene MR stated at 131: ‘…[A] gift under which the beneficiaries
are defined by reference to a purely personal relationship to a named propositus cannot on principle
be a valid charitable gift. And this, I think, must be the case whether the relationship be near
or distant, whether it is limited to one generation or is extended to two or three or in perpetuity.
The inherent vice of the personal element is present however long the chain and the claimant cannot
avoid basing his claim on it.

22

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Poverty
Public benefit requirement is exempted. dikeluarkan

Reason: relief of poverty itself is a public benefit.

A gift/trust by the creator that family members, or others connected by association or contract, be
given preference in the administration of the charity, will not invalidate the trust for relief of poverty.

Gifts should be for among the poor people of a particular description (described as a class /group)
and not to relieve poverty among particular named individuals. (dah kira jadi Private trust – not
charitable)

RE COMPTON [1945] Ch 123: trusts for poor relations = charitable. However, the gift for education
purposes of few named families = not charitable.

RE SCARISBRICK’S WILL TRUST (1951) Ch 622 CA a trust was made by the testator “for such
relations” that shall be in ‘needy circumstances. Held: charitable trust under relief of poverty even
though it was confined to the relations of the testator.

AG v PRICE 1810 17 Ves 371 the Court has approved the gift to ‘my poor Kinsmen’ as charitable.

DINGLE v TURNER [1972] AC 601; [1972] 1 All ER 878

A trust to be used ‘in paying pensions to poor employees of E. Dingle and Co. Ltd who were aged or
incapacitated.’

HOL: It was to relieve poverty among a particular description of poor persons. If it is for relief of
poverty among particularly named persons, it would not be charitable.

Education
Educational purposes – generally cha, even if for private school as long as it does not run for private
profit.

Public benefit for education purposes- refer to approach by Lord Simmonds in OPPEINHEIM v
TOBACCO SECURITIES TRUST CO. LTD 1951 AC 297.

OPPENHEIM - trust for educating children of employees/ ex-employees of British-American Tobacco

Co. Ltd.” or any of its subsidiary/allied company. The number of workers amounted to more than
110,000.

Held: Not cha - did not satisfy the public benefit requirement; there was a common quality of
employment between all the beneficiaries, a nexus or relationship between the donor and the
beneficiaries.

Obiter: Lord Macdermott dissent - look to degree of benefit to community as a whole.

Lord Simmonds:“…the question is whether that class of persons can be regarded as a ‘section of the
community’ so as to satisfy the test of the public benefit. These words ‘section of the community’ …
conveniently indicate that

(i) the possible beneficiaries must not be numerically negligible and

23

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

(ii) that the quality which distinguishes them from other members of the community… must be a
quality which does not depend on their particular relationship to a particular individual (i.e. nexus to
the donor).

A group of persons may be numerous, but if the nexus between them is their personal relationship to
a single propositus or several propositi; they are neither the community nor a section of the
community for charitable purposes.

RE COMPTON: trust for education of descendants of X, Y and Z;

Held: invalid as defined by personal relationship to named persons.

CAFFOUR (GHAFFOR) v INCOME TAX COMS. COLOMBO 1961 AC 587

Where trust made for “the education instruction or training in England or elsewhere abroad of
deserving youths of Islamic faith… with preference to male descendants along either the male or
female line of the donor of his brothers and sisters…”

Held: because of the absolute priority conferred on the donor’s own family, this is a family trust and
would not be granted charitable status.

RE KOTTEGEN’S WILL TRUSTS 1954 Ch 252

Where a testatrix made a gift “for the promotion and furtherance of commercial education” and
then outlined in wide terms the eligible beneficiaries and added that not more than 75% of the total
income for any year was to be devoted to “any employees of John Batt & Co or any members of the
families of such employees.”

Uplin J held: the primary class of beneficiaries from which the trustees could select beneficiaries
-satisfied the requirement of public benefit.

IRC v EDUCATIONAL GRANTS ASSOCIATION 1967 Ch 123

The Association was established for the advancement of education and it received most of it income
from Metal Box 76 – 85% of the Association’s income was applied for the education of children of
persons having some tie with Metal Box Ltd.

Held: it was not charitable as it did not satisfy the requirement of public benefit. It was a trust for the
public with preference for a private class.

Note: if a group preference is stated, it must only be a preference and not an absolute right in favour
of the private group (e.g. CAFFOUR) and a 75% of the income to be used for them as the absolute
maximum.

24

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Religion
Benefit to the public is satisfied if the religious activity is available to the public, if the public wishes
to take advantage of it. Also in the mixing of a section of the public with their fellow citizens by
people who attend religious services.

NEVILLE ESTATES vs MADDEN 1944 AC 341;

A trust was made for a Jewish synagogue which was only open to Jewish public only.

H: charitable as the public benefit still accrued as a result of the Jewish’s community attendance at
the synagogue.

GILMOUR v COATES 1949 1 AER 848

The gift was made for the purposes of a Roman Catholic community of strictly cloistered nuns. The
nuns did no work outside the convent but devoted their lives to meditation, fasting and holding
private religious services and prayers.

H: not charitable as the nuns had no contact with the outside world. Even though it was argued that
public benefit accrued through the prayers made by the nuns on behalf of members of public who
requested them, Lord Simmonds disagreed. He was of the opinion that the nuns’ prayers were “not
manifestly susceptible of proof in a court of law”

RE HETHERINGTON 1989 2 WLR 1094

A gift made for the saying of ‘masses of the souls of my husband, parents, sisters and myself’, was
upheld as gift for the advancement of religion. Nicholas Browne Wilkinson V was of the view that
the celebration of a religious rite in public does confer a sufficient public benefit.

He stated: - “Where there is a gift for a religious purpose which could be carried out in way which is
beneficial to the public (i.e. by public masses) but could also be carried out in a way which would not
have sufficient element if public benefit (i.e. private masses) the gift is to be construed as a gift to be
carried out only by the methods being excluded.”

RE ABDUL GUNY ABDULLASA 1936 5 MLJ 174

A trust for the recital of prayers in the names of Mohamedan saints was held to have been created
for the holding of the religious ceremony, charitable in nature for the advancement of religion. It is
also for the upkeep and maintenance of mosques.

RE ALSAGOFF’S TRUSTS 1956 22 MLJ 244

Where a trust for the maintenance and provisions of mats and zam zam water for use by person
visiting the Mecca Mosque.

Held: charitable as it benefits the general public.

RE HADJEE ESMAIL KASSIM 1911 12 SSLR 74

A trust was made for pilgrimage purposes to Mecca but it failed on the grounds that it ‘merely
provide solace to the pilgrim and possibly his family’

Commented: the decision has been wrongly made, most possibly due to inadequate argument put
forward by the counsel to the court.

25

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Compare with: RE MAC CARTHY’S WILL TRUSTS 1958 Ir R 311 where a bequest for Catholic
pilgrimage to Lourdes has been declared charitable.

Other Purposes
For a valid trust under this head, it must be in the legal sense beneficial to the public.

What is required is that whatever the purpose is, it must be available to benefit more than a closed
group or limited class.

VERGE v COMMERVILLE 1924 AC 496

The Court drew a distinction between private individuals and a class of the community, of which the
latter will constitute for public benefit. The testator made a gift for the Repatriation Fund or other
similar funds for the benefit of New South Wales returned soldiers.

H: charitable gift as it satisfied the public benefit test as the relief extended to the whole community
though it might be taken up only by a particular part of the community.

26

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

Element 3 – Exclusively Charitable

A charitable trust must be wholly and exclusively for charitable purposes.

Mixed Purposes – (charitable + non charitable) at general law = non-charitable status

THE ‘and’ and ‘or PRINCIPLE

To consider whether a trust is charitable or not, to be within the requirement of wholly and
exclusively charitable, one have to look upon the wording used by the settlor i.e. the words
‘and’ and ‘or’.

Court will construe the language used in a gift and made appropriate decision,

(Note: word ‘benevolent’ is broader than the words ‘charitable’= connotes mix of charitable &
Noncharitable)

The ‘OR’ Principle

Usage of the word ‘or’ outlining the purposes of a trust /gift, the court will generally construe
that it is giving alternatives for the use of the property e.g., “charitable or benevolent”

If one of the alternatives purposes is not a charity, it will NOT be considered as wholly and
exclusively charitable.

OR – the purposes to be read disjunctively i.e., mixed

CHICHESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE v SIMPSON 1944 gift for “charitable or

benevolent objects” were held; by the court to be too wide to mean legal charity.

BLAIR v DUNCAN 1902 AC 37 the words used were “charitable or public purposes”

Held: not exclusively charitable as public purposes are not necessarily charitable.

HOUSTON v BURNS 1918 AC 337 “public, benevolent or charitable purposes”

Held; non-charitable as the trustees could apply the fund to non-charitable purposes.

Mixed Purposes - general law: non-charitable.

For example

 “charitable or benevolent”
 “objects of benevolence or liberality” example used in Morice V Bishop Of Durham
 alternative purposes
 compendious purposes – requires significant indication of charitable purpose

27

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

If OR is used between 2 purposes, both of which are charitable, then the gift is charitable.

Re Bennett 1920 1 Ch 305, a gift for “charity or other public objects in the parish of
Farringdon.

Held: charitable, the judge concludes the word other refers to charity too (conjunctively).

OR used between 3 purposes all of which are clearly charitable, the gift is charitable. E.g.,
RE WORD 1941, a gift for “educational or charitable or religious purposes”

The ‘AND’ Principle

Re Sutton 1885 28 Ch 464, gifts for “charitable and deserving objects” held; charitable.

Morice V Bishop Of Durham: objects of benevolence and liberality, H: too wide to be

charitable

The word ‘and’ is used between 2 out of 3 words, generally it will not make a gift charitable
as only 2 of the words can be construed conjunctively.

WILLIAMS v KERSHAM 1835, a gift for “benevolent, charitable and religious purposes”
held; not exclusively charitable.

Usage of the word AND - is used between 2 purposes and the 1st is charitable, generally the
2nd purpose is read in conjunction with the 1st one (conjunctively)

Re Best 1904 2 Ch 354, gift for “charitable and benevolent purposes” held; charitable,
wholly & exclusively

28

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

3.0 Ancillary/incidental Non – Charitable Purpose

If the trust / gift introduce non-charitable activities authorized by the trust instrument which
are merely subsidiary / incidental to a charitable purpose, it will still be considered as
charitable.

Sekiranya amanah / hadiah memperkenalkan aktiviti bukan amal yang dibenarkan oleh
instrumen amanah yang semata-mata subsidiari / bersampingan dengan tujuan amal, ia
tetap akan dianggap sebagai amal.

Incorporated Council for Law Reporting for England & Wales V AT. General1971 Ch 73
EA.

The Council’s primary object was the preparation and publication at a moderate price of
Reports of Judicial Decisions of the Superior and Appellate Courts in England & Wales. The
Reports were used by lawyers in their profession and those studying law and the profits
made were used to further the Council’s objects.

Issue: whether the Council should be given charitable status?

The council was established for exclusively charitable purposes. Reports of judicial decisions
were for the benefit of the community as it ensured sound development, administration and
knowledge of law.

Even though the reports were used by lawyers to earn their fees, it did not make the
Council’s purposes non-charitable. It was an inevitable and necessary step in the
achievement of that purposes that members of the legal profession should be supplied with
the tools of their trade.

Re Coxon 1948 2 AER 492

Where a testator left £200,000 for the orthopedic hospitals and directed that £100 per year
should be spent on the annual free dinner for the trustee. The trustee will also be paid a
small token, if he attended the whole of a trust meeting. H: the private purposes (free dinner
and attendance fee) were merely incidental to the main charitable trust for the hospitals. It
was given for the better administration of the trust rather than for the personal benefit of the
trustees.

If some objects are charitable and some objects are not and there is possibility to apportion
between the charitable and non-charitable purposes, such a gift is a valid gift to the charity
provided the purposes are wholly and exclusively charitable.

29

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|34135713

If the executor / trustee default in making an apportionment between the charitable and non-
charitable, Court will apportion the property equally between the two classes of objects.

If it impossible to separate between the objects as to became a mixture of charitable and

non-charitable objects – it will be non-charitable as stated in Mc GOVERN v A.G. 1981 3
AER 493 Ch.D.

30

Downloaded by jane jenny ([email protected])