Charitable Trusts: Exception to the Beneficiary Principle and Types of Charitable Trusts, Exams of Law

The Beneficiary Principle in trust law and how charitable trusts are an exception to it. It outlines the requirements for certainty of intention and subject matter and provides examples of charitable purposes such as relief of poverty and advancement of education. The document also explains the role of the courts in determining if a trust is educative and meets the public benefit test for charitable status.

Typology: Exams

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

norris
norris šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§

4

(5)

212 documents

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
CHARITABLE TRUSTS
Beneficiary Principle
- Requires express trusts to have identifiable persons as their object, primarily so that there is someone
with sufficient standing to enforce the trust in court (Morice v Bishop of Durham).
- Trusts that are created for a purpose rather than an individual are generally held to be invalid.
Charitable Trusts: Exception to the Beneficiary Principle
- Charitable trusts are an exception to the Beneficiary Principle, and thus do not require certainty of
object.
- Certainty of intention and certainty of subject matter are still required.
STEP ONE: INTRODUCTION
WRITE: The Beneficiary Principle dictates that there must be certainty of object; express trusts must have
identifiable persons as their object (Morice v Bishop of Durham). Charitable trusts are an exception to the
Beneficiary Principle, and thus do not require certainty of object. Charitable trusts are ā€œfor a purpose, not for a
personā€ (Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd, Dixon and Evatt JJ).
To circumvent the lack of object of certainty, and in arguing the validity of their trust, [X] may argue that their
trust is a charitable trust.
STEP TWO: HEADS OF POWER
WRITE: Reflective of the historic purposes in the Statute of Elizabeth, four heads of charities have been
established (Pemsel, per Lord McNaughton, and endorsed by HCA in Aid/Watch).
On these facts, [X] will maintain that their trust is valid as it is a trust for [CHOOSE].
- Relief of Poverty
- Advancement of Education
- Advancement of Religion
- Other Purposes to Benefit the Public
[Y] will likely argue that the trust fails to meet the common law requirements of [same as above].
STEP THREE: RELIEF OF POVERTY
WRITE: Although the words ā€˜poor’ or ā€˜poverty’ are not used in the trust, [X] will argue that the words [insert from
facts], as with the words ā€œamelioration of conditions of returned service menā€, indicate the provision/clause
intends to benefit persons in need (Downing v FCT, per Walsh J).
- The relief of poverty is not limited to destitution
- Examples:
o Trust for ā€˜ladies of limited means’.
o Trust for ā€˜persons of moderate means’.
o Trust for ā€˜widows & spinsters whose incomes are more than Ā£40 & less than Ā£80 per annum’.
o Trust for oldest respectable inhabitants of Gunville to the amount of 5s. per week.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Charitable Trusts: Exception to the Beneficiary Principle and Types of Charitable Trusts and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CHARITABLE TRUSTS

Beneficiary Principle

  • Requires express trusts to have identifiable persons as their object, primarily so that there is someone with sufficient standing to enforce the trust in court (Morice v Bishop of Durham).
  • Trusts that are created for a purpose rather than an individual are generally held to be invalid. Charitable Trusts: Exception to the Beneficiary Principle
  • Charitable trusts are an exception to the Beneficiary Principle, and thus do not require certainty of object.
  • Certainty of intention and certainty of subject matter are still required. STEP ONE: INTRODUCTION WRITE: The Beneficiary Principle dictates that there must be certainty of object; express trusts must have identifiable persons as their object (Morice v Bishop of Durham). Charitable trusts are an exception to the Beneficiary Principle, and thus do not require certainty of object. Charitable trusts are ā€œfor a purpose, not for a personā€ (Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd, Dixon and Evatt JJ). To circumvent the lack of object of certainty, and in arguing the validity of their trust, [X] may argue that their trust is a charitable trust. STEP TWO: HEADS OF POWER WRITE: Reflective of the historic purposes in the Statute of Elizabeth, four heads of charities have been established (Pemsel, per Lord McNaughton, and endorsed by HCA in Aid/Watch). On these facts, [X] will maintain that their trust is valid as it is a trust for [CHOOSE].
  • Relief of Poverty
  • Advancement of Education
  • Advancement of Religion
  • Other Purposes to Benefit the Public [Y] will likely argue that the trust fails to meet the common law requirements of [same as above]. STEP THREE: RELIEF OF POVERTY WRITE: Although the words ā€˜poor’ or ā€˜poverty’ are not used in the trust, [X] will argue that the words [insert from facts], as with the words ā€œamelioration of conditions of returned service menā€, indicate the provision/clause intends to benefit persons in need (Downing v FCT, per Walsh J).
  • The relief of poverty is not limited to destitution
  • Examples: o Trust for ā€˜ladies of limited means’. o Trust for ā€˜persons of moderate means’. o Trust for ā€˜widows & spinsters whose incomes are more than Ā£40 & less than Ā£80 per annum’. o Trust for oldest respectable inhabitants of Gunville to the amount of 5s. per week.
  • Public Benefit  Trusts for relief of poverty do not face a separate requirement that they also be for the ā€˜public benefit’ nor that they are for ā€˜a section of the public’ o The relief of poverty, even if only for a small group of people, is in the public benefit because it relieves the strain on the public purse STEP FOUR: ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION WRITE: On the facts, [X] may argue that the object of the trust is [choose from below] and should therefore be held as a charitable, educational trust.
  • A trust will be of educational value if it has effect of: (a) training the mind; (b) promote learning; (c) raising the artistic taste of a country; (d) improving the sum of communicable knowledge in an area which education may cover WRITE: It is the courts role to decide if the trust is educative, not the settlor (Re Shaw). The court will need to assess the merits of this case with regard to Lord Simonds’s public benefit test in Oppenheim.
  • Public Benefit  TEST: Educational trusts must be for the (1) benefit of community or (2) a section of the community (Oppenheim) o Trusts for the promotion of education of particular individuals are not valid charitable trusts (fails the second limb – section of the community) FIRST LIMB (1) Benefit of community WRITE: YES  As the trust is/can be directed to [community], who can benefit from the trust, the trust satisfies the second limb of the Oppenheim test. WRITE: NO  Consequently, the trust will not be held to be a valid charitable trust. SECOND LIMB (2) Section of community WRITE: YES  As the trust is/can be directed to [section of community], who can benefit from the trust, the trust satisfies the second limb of the Oppenheim test. WRITE: NO  As the trust is directed specifically to [name], an individual person, the educational trust cannot be for the benefit of a section of the community. Consequently, the trust will not be held to be a valid charitable trust.
  • For court to decide if it is educative, not the settlor (Re Shaw)
  • Factors: o Dissemination of knowledge/educative value/must be some element of teaching, increasing public knowledge is not enough (e.g. propaganda – Re Shaw )
  • Examples: o Displaying worthless personal belongings - NO (Re Pinion) o Mainstream academic research – YES (Re Hopkins) o Includes formal and informal education, scholarships and prizes, educational facilities, drama, fine arts, and moneys for research

WRITE: In satisfaction of the public benefit requirement of a charitable trust, as [explain], [X] will argue that the trust meets s10(2) of the Charities Act (Cth), whereby the trust is a ā€˜closed or contemplative religious order that regularly undertakes prayerful intervention at the request for members of the public’. Public Benefit  Charities Act 2013 (Cth) s10(2) deems an institution to have a purpose for the public benefit to the extent that it is a ā€˜closed or contemplative religious order that regularly undertakes prayerful intervention at the request for members of the public’. STEP SIX: OTHER PURPOSES TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC STEP A – Classifying ā€˜other purpose’ WRITE: To determine whether the ā€˜other purpose’ satisfactorily meets the purpose requirements of a valid charitable trust, we must look to the preamble of the Statute of Elizabeth and the Charities Act 2003 (Cth) for guidance. [Analogise the purpose on the facts to either or both of the below] Statute of Elizabeth – Preamble

  • ā€˜Other purpose’ in 4th^ head of charity must be ā€œwithin the spirit and intendmentā€ of the preamble
  • ā€˜Other purpose’ must fall within or be analogous to one of the 10 specific charitable purposes listed in the preamble o The relief of the aged, poor and impotent; o The maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners; o The repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, seabanks and highways; o The maintenance of schools and colleges; o The education and preferment of orphans; o The relief, stock or maintenance of houses of correction; o Marriages of poor maids; o The supportation, aid and help for young tradesmen, handicraftsmen and persons decayed; o The relief or redemption of prisoners or captives; o The aid and ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payment of fifteens, setting out soldiers, and other taxes. Charities Act 2013 (Cth) Section 12(1): charitable purpose means any of the following: (a) the purpose of advancing health; (b) the purpose of advancing education; (c) the purpose of advancing social or public welfare; (d) the purpose of advancing religion; (e) the purpose of advancing culture; (f) the purpose of promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia; (g) the purpose of promoting or protecting human rights; (h) the purpose of advancing the security or safety of Australia or the Australian public; (i) the purpose of preventing or relieving the suffering of animals; (j) the purpose of advancing the natural environment; (k) any other purpose beneficial to the general public that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (j); (l) the purpose of promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country, if:

(i) in the case of promoting a change—the change is in furtherance or in aid of one or more of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (k); or (ii) in the case of opposing a change—the change is in opposition to, or in hindrance of, one or more of the purposes mentioned in those paragraphs. STEP B – Does the trust pass the Public Benefit Test? WRITE: The trust must seek to benefit the public or a section of the public. Here …

  • A trust is not for a charitable purpose if it confers only private benefits
  • A charitable trust must benefit the public as a whole or a section of the public
  • Oppenheim, per Lord Simonds o Beneficiaries must not be numerically negligible and not depend on their relationship to a particular individual STEP SEVEN: TRUST’S FOR MIXED PURPOSES WRITE: It is evident that [trust] is for both charitable and non-charitable purposes, namely [explain]. Per s7M(1) of the Charities Act 2003 (Cth), trust’s for mixed purposes will fail for invalidity. However, per s7M(1), a court will have the power to strike out a non-charitable/invalid purpose and construe the trust as if the non- charitable/invalid purpose were not there. For the mixed trust to be valid, [X] should argue that the court adopt s7M(2) to uphold the charitable purpose of the [trust].
  • At general law a trust for both charitable & non-charitable purposes failed for invalidity
  • If a trust extends to non-charitable purposes a court cannot effectively control the trust Charities Act 1978 (Vic) s 7M(1) A trust is not to be held to be invalid by reason that some non-charitable and invalid as well as some charitable purpose or purposes is or are or could be deemed to be included in any of the purposes to or for which that trust directs or allows the trust funds or any part of the trust funds to be applied. Charities Act 1978 (Vic) s 7M(2) A trust referred to in subsection (1) is to be construed and given effect to in the same manner in all respects as if no application of the trust funds or of any part of the trust funds to or for the non-charitable and invalid purpose had been or should be deemed to have been so directed or allowed. s7M(2) can be used in three different situations: SCENARIO COURT’S APPLICATION/OUTCOME A trust expressed in the alternative - for charitable or non-charitable purposes Court pencils out the non-charitable purpose and construe it as if the non-charitable purpose were not there.