Charitable trusts are different from private once and they have no statutory definition before 2006 Act

but
aimed to provide a clear benefit to society and NOT individual in accordance with the statement of Viscount
Simonds in !C v "addeley #$%%&'( t is later considered in the Charities Act 20$$ as )public benefit
re*uirement+
$
which varies as to the nature and terms of the purpose( n my essay will discuss the approach
ta,en by the courts towards this condition in the conte-t of charitable trusts in the bac,.round of the
purposes set out in s2 #2' Charities Act 2006
2
/
a( the prevention or relief of poverty0
b( the advancement of education0
c( the advancement of reli.ion0
d( the advancement of health or the savin. of life0
e( The advancement of animal welfare and others
The 2006 Act builds on the pre1e-istin. law and purposes fallin. within the new heads of charity are
discussed as 2ord 3acna.hten+s fourth head( These )other purposes beneficial to the community+
different from the listed below are discussed in ncome Ta- Special 4urposes Commrs v 4emsel case(
5
6irst7 in the Charitable Act 20067 s2 #$' #b'
8
is stated that purpose will be charitable only if it is for the
public benefit which means valuable for the community or important part of it( 3oreover7
or.anisations have to provide an evidence to confirm that benefit which fall under s5 #2'
&
and is same
for all of the purposes
6
but such that court still has to assess( n the case of National Anti1vivisection
Society v !C
9
7 the :ud.e concluded ;that the value of the material benefits of vivisection outwei.hed
the moral benefits of anti1vivisection(<
=
f the evidence establishes that there is no benefit or the benefit
is not capable of proof7 the claim to charitable status will fail( This is the case of !e 4inion >$%6&? in
which e-pert evidence was .iven that a collection of proposed e-hibits which)were worthless as a
means of education7 and no useful purpose could be served by foistin. on the public a mass of :un,+(
%

Accordin. to the advancement of reli.ion in the case of @ilmour v Coats
$0
it was considered that the
court cannot determine the truth of any reli.ious belief and could only act on evidence before it( n this
case the purposes of the community of cloistered and contemplative nuns were not le.ally charitable
$$

and the benefit of prayers was too va.ue and intan.ible to satisfy the test( Charity as stated by 6arwell
A in !e Belany
$2
case ;is necessary altruistic and involves the idea of aid or benefit to others<(
3oreover7 the court has no power to access a benefit which is of chan.e to the law or .overnmental
policy as held in 3c@overn v A1@ case(
$5

Ne-t point that the court has to discuss is what constitute a sufficient section of the public( This is
concerned in )Compton test+
$8
approved by the ma:ority of the Couse of 2ords in Oppenheim v
Tobacco Securities Trust Co 2td
$&
( Accordin. to this test there should be no )personal ne-us+ and the
.roup which will benefit must not be numerically ne.li.ible( 3oreover7 the feature which distin.uish
$
p(5Charity Commission7 4ublic "enefit7 Analysis of the law relatin. to public benefit( Available at/
http/DDwww(charitycommission(.ov(u,DmediaD%8=8%Dlawpb$20=(pdf > Accessed/08D05D20$8?
2
Charities Act 20067 s 2#$'7#2'
5
$=%$? Ac &5$7 &=57 based on the classification put forward by Sir !omilly as counsel in 3orice v "ishop of Burham
#$=0&' $0 Ves &22
8
Charities Act 20067 s 2#$'#b'
&
Charities Act 20067 s 5#2'
6
p(29% E*uity and the 2aw of Trust 7 $$th ed( 7 4hilip C(4ettit 7 )Charitable trust+
9
>$%8=? AC 557 >$%89? 2 All E! 5$9
=
p(2=0 E*uity and the 2aw of Trust 7 $$th ed( 7 4hilip C(4ettit 7 )Charitable trust+
%
!e 4inion >$%6&? Ch =&7 >$%68? $ All E! =%0
$0
>$%8%? AC 8267 >$%8%? $ All E! =8=
$$
p(2% 4icarda C(7 The 2aw and 4ractice !elatin. to Charities7 8
th
ed( 7 Chapter 2( Available at/
Fhttp/DDwww(bloomsburyprofessional(comDpdfsD4icarda1Ch021cpp(pdf G >Accessed/0=D05D20$8?
$2
!e Belany >$%02? 2 Ch 682768=7 68%
$5
3c@overn v A1@ >$%=2? Ch 52$7 >$%=$? 5 All E! %8
$8
!e Compton > $%8&? Ch $257 >$%8&? $ All E! $%=
$&
>$%&$? AC 2%97 >$%&$? $ All E! 5$7 C2
them as a .roup from others should not depend on their relationship( Nonetheless7 that they are
numerous7 the ne-us between them is their personal relationship7 because they are $$0 000 employees
whose fund created aim is to provide education for their children( They are neither the community nor
a section of the community for charitable purpose(
$6
3any criticiHe the )personal ne-us re*uirement+
but often the trust is valid even where there are much less beneficiaries than in Tobacco case( Bespite
that fact7 on the other hand sometimes absurdity prevails and the educational trust for the benefit of
children of employees could be valid( Similar is the conclusion in !e Compton
$9
where a trust for
education of the lawful descendants of three named persons was held not to be for a section of the
public and thus not charitable( Cowever7 the Compton test was found *uite uncertain and in Bin.le v
Turner7 2ord Cross concludes that whether or not a class constitutes a section of the public is a
*uestion of de.ree7 ta,in. into account the facts of the case(
$=
n the case !C v "addeley
$%
7 2ord
Somervell did not accept the principle that if )section of public+ is sufficient to support a valid trust in
one cate.ory is able to do so in other( t confirms that even small .roup can benefit from the trust if it
is in public benefit for the promotion of reli.ion(
20
2ater7 2ord Simonds e-press that if purpose fallen
within the fourth head7 the trusts would still have been charitable as the prospective beneficiaries I
members and potential members of the 3ethodist Church in Jest ham and 2eyton Iwere a )class
within a class+ and did not constitute a section of the public(
2$
"ut in Neville Estates 2td v 3adden
22

they were held to be section of the public( To sum up7 to be satisfied the public benefit re*uirement we
should loo, at the indirect benefit to the wider community #when the class is small' and this class to
form section of the public needs to shall *ualifications for membership(
25
n one hand7 the charitable nature of the trust remain unaffected even if limited number of people are
capable of that benefit( 6or e-ample7 valid is a trust only when that part of the public constitute a
sufficient important section7 in cases of relief of anyone in the community sufferin. from a particular
disease(
28
"ut not all mutual benefits for society are reco.niHed as public benefit as in !e Cobourn
Aero Components
2&
where collection of the wa.es in a fund seems more as self1helpin. for private
benefit7 havin. personal character without poverty means and held uncharitable( Cowever7 the fiscal
privile.es and the element of public benefit are considered by 2ord Cross in Bin.le v Turner but
dropped in other cases( Ce made a distinction between the practical merits of the Compton rule and the
reasonin. by which 2ord @reene 3! sou.ht to :ustify it(
26
The mean of section of the public could be
different for different people but public benefit re*uirement has to be proved no matter what the
purpose is7 advanced by Charity Commission in the .uidance( n the past advancement of poverty was
e-cluded from that re*uirement but with s 8#2' Charities Act 20$$ public benefit can no lon.er be
presumed but needs to be established by the facts(
29
3oreover7 this re*uirement is not permanent and may vary durin. the time as in National Anti1
Vivisection Society v !C case( The test for public benefit )passed where the persons to benefit are all
outside :urisdiction+ and the same re*uirements applied for all the charities( t is necessary to
distin.uish ob:ects of the charity and means by which it is carried out( f ob:ects are contrary to the law
$6
p( 2$0 !ichard Edwards and Ni.el Stoc,wel7 Trusts and E*uity7 =
th
ed
$9
p(2=$ E*uity and the 2aw of Trust 7 $$th ed( 7 4hilip C(4ettit 7 )Charitable trust+
$=
p(2=2 E*uity and the 2aw of Trust 7 $$th ed( 7 4hilip C(4ettit 7 )Charitable trust+
$%
Supra7 C2 7 at 6$&7&8%( See also per 2ord Simonds in National Anti1vivisection Society v !C >$%8=? AC
20
p(2=2 E*uity and the 2aw of Trust 7 $$th ed( 7 4hilip C(4ettit 7 )Charitable trust+
2$
Jilliams+ Trustees v !C >$%89? AC 8897 8&97 >$%89? $ All EC &$57 &207 C2
22
>$%62? Ch =527 >$%6$? 5 All E! 96%
25
Bavies v 4erpetual Trustees Co 2td >$%&% AC 85%7 4C
28
!C v "addeley >$%&&? Ac &927 &%27 >$%&&? $ All E! &2&7 &557 C2
2&
>$%86? Ch $%87 >$%68? $ All E! &0$7 CA
26
p(58 4icarda C(7 The 2aw and 4ractice !elatin. to Charities7 8
th
ed( 7 Chapter 2( Available at/
Fhttp/DDwww(bloomsburyprofessional(comDpdfsD4icarda1Ch021cpp(pdf G >Accessed/0=D05D20$8?
29
Charities Act 20$$7 s8#2'
I it will not be charitable but if only )means of carryin. out the ob:ect+ are contrary then there will be a
failure in the trusts and the case for cy1pres doctrine apply(
2=
n the case of !esch+s Jill Trusts
>$%6%?
2%
the evidence showed that the hospital carried on commercially for the benefit of private
individuals accordin. to advancement of health or savin. of lives #head)d+'( "ut 4rivy Council held
that providin. accommodation and treatment by hospital is benefitial to the community and the trust
was valid charitable( n Aoseph !owntree 3emorial Trust Cousin.
50
the Charity Commissioners
concluded that charitable or.anisation buildin. individual dwellin.s for sale to elderly people7
operated in contract way and aim to benefit individuals not to be in a public benefit or charitable class(
Bespite7 the financial support for individuals7 it was held that the scheme was charitable for the relief
of the a.ed7 no matter Commissioners decision(
5$

On the other hand7 not all charitable purposes are in the public benefit( These for the advancement of
animal welfare in protectin. lost animals under the charity as in the case of !e Bou.las
52
were
accepted as private purpose trusts for own obli.ation(
55
Jhen the purpose of the or.anisation e-ist for
the public benefit then it is valid charitable but the trust for political purposes is sli.htly problematic(
n the "owman v Secular Society 2td
58
2ord 4ar,er stated that a trust for the attainment of political
ob:ects has always been held invalid not because its ille.al but because )K the court has no means of
:ud.in. a proposed chan.e in the law will or will not be for the public benefit+(
5&

To conclude7 under the Charities Act7 every charity includes reli.ious7 educational7 and poverty relief
have to show that it provides a public benefit when re.isterin.
56
but sometimes it depends on the facts
and then the court has to decide when problematic issues arise li,e this for the advancement of
poverty( Cowever7 when the benefit is en:oyed by sufficient section of the community then the trust
would be valid( "ut at all the court+s notion of public benefit may vary with the passin. of time(
2=
p(2=& E*uity and the 2aw of Trust 7 $$th ed( 7 4hilip C(4ettit 7 )Charitable trust+
2%
p($=6 =(5(6( @ary Jatt7 E*uity and Trust law I Birections7 O-ford Lniversity 4ress 200=
50
Aoseph !owntree 3emorial Trust Cousin. Association 2td v Attorney1@eneral >$%=2? 2 J2! 2=8
5$
p($=% =(5($2( )the relief of those in need7 by reason of youth7 a.e7 ill1health7 disability7 financial hardship or other
disadvanta.e #head ):+'+7 @ary Jatt7 E*uity and Trust law I Birections7 O-ford Lniversity 4ress 200=
52
>$==9? 5& CCd 892
55
p($=% 9(5(2 !e Bean7 Birections
58
>$%$9? AC 806
5&
p($%8 !e Bean7 Birections
56
Coo, supra note $$97 Charities Act 2006IA @uide to the 3ain 4rovisions Jhich Affect Charities7
CCA!TM CO33+N7 Nov( 20067 Fhttp/DDwww(charity1commission(.ov(u,DsprD
ca2006prov(aspN$(G
"iblio.prahy
Te-tboo,s
$(Edwards !( O Stoc,well N(7 )Trusts and Equity7 %
th
ed( 4earson Education 2imited 200%7 Edinbur.h
@ate
2(Edwards !( O Stoc,well N(7 )Trusts and Equity7 =
th
ed( 4earson Education 2imited 200%7 Edinbur.h
@ate
5(Cudson A(7 )Equity & Trusts7 8
th
ed(7 Cavendish 4ublishin. 2imited 200&7 2ondon
8(4ettit 4(C., Equity and The Law of Trusts+7 $$th ed( 7O-ford Lniversity 4ress 200%7 O-ford
&(4ettit 4(C(7 )Equity and The Law of Trusts 7 $0th ed( 7O-ford Lniversity 4ress 20067 O-ford
6(4icarda C(7 )The Law and Practice Relating To Charities,8
th
ed(7 "loomsbury 4rofessionals 20$5
9(!am:ohn 3(7 )Cases and Materials n Trusts7 Cavendish 4ublishin. 2imited 20087 2ondon
=(!e Bean7 )!irections
%(Jatt @(7 )Equity and Trust Law I !irections, O-ford Lniversity 4ress 200=
Online Aournals
$(September 20057 Charity Commission/ ) 4ublic benefit/ analysis of the law relatin. to public benefit+
7viewed on 08D05D20$8 Fhttp/DDwww(charitycommission(.ov(u,DmediaD%8=8%Dlawpb$20=(pdfG
2( Tiffany Peb7 associate Editor7 Ore.on 2aw !eview7 2009I0=7 )Comment/ !edefinin. Jhat t
3eans to "e Charitable/ !aisin. the "ar with a 4ublic "enefit !e*uirement+7 viewed on 29D05D20$8
Fhttp/DDlaw(uore.on(eduDor.DolroldDarchivesD=6D,eb(pdfG

2e.islation
$(Charities Act 2006IA @uide to the 3ain 4rovisions Jhich Affect Charities7
CCA!TM CO33+N7 Nov( 20067 viewed on 0&D05D20$8 Fhttp/DDwww(charity1
commission(.ov(u,DsprDca2006prov(aspN$(G
2(Charities Act 20$$7 viewed on 0&D05D20$8
Fhttp/DDwww(le.islation(.ov(u,Du,p.aD20$$D2&DcontentsDenactedG