Charitable Trust

The following request of Caesar’s will could be considered as a trust for the relief of poverty. In the case of Re Lewis, the Preamble o the 1601 Statute speaks of “aged, impotent and poor” people. Whereas, this was further explained by Evershed MR in the case of Re Coulthurst, that “aged” speaks for itself, “impotent” is construed liberally and “poor” is a relative term. Hence, it is a matter of degree. There is no need for the trust to be an endowment. A trust may be charitable although the trustee may distribute the capital. In Re Scarisbrick, it was upheld that “for such relations of my … son and daughters as in the opinion of the survivor of my … son and daughters shall be in needy circumstances … as the survivor … shall by deed or will appoint.” This is also similar to Caesar’s case where, this was a trust for “poor relations”, and there is no requirement, in poverty cases, for public benefit. However, there can be no charitable trust, even in poverty category, if the person to be benefited is specified individuals and in such that a construction is more likely where the capital of trust may be immediately distributed. But this is still indecisive. Therefore, in Caesar’s case, where he leave 50,000 pounds to his relatives, in the UK or in any EU member State, who may be in financially needy circumstances after his death may take effect as a trust for charitable purposes.

Subsequently, the issue regarding here is advancement of religion. Nowadays there so various types of religions, but in order to identify which one of are regarded as a proper religion in law, we have to evaluate through case laws. The meaning of religion was suggested in Bowman v Secular Society by Lord Parker of Waddington. He suggested that any form of monotheism will be recognized as religion, but the restriction to monotheism is probably now outmoded. In Re South Place Ethical Society, a question arose. It was whether the Society’s objects, which were the “study and dissemination of ethical principles and the cultivation of a rational religious sentiment,” were charitable under this heading. However, Dillon J held that they were not. Hence, in order to be regarded as charitable, a trust must be for the advancement of religion. The law itself does not discriminate any religions, no single religion is assumed to be better then another as seen in Neville Estates Ltd v Madden. The test of public benefit as required for the third heading is regarded to be it should benefit the public or at least a section of it as seen in Re Herington. In Re Banfield, it was held that a gift to non-formal religious community did not render the gift non-charitable as long as it promotes practical charity. Where the public is denied access to such a trust, the courts had disallowed such a trust to be held charitable. What is then a Masonic club? It is some sort of freemasonry religion which is some sort of secret society. In United Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of England and Wales v Holborn BC, however, it was held that the objects of a body such as the Freemasons, where the society believes the demand of the highest personal, social and domestic standards do not amount as religion even though the defendants argued that there is a believe in divine spirit. Therefore,  Caesar’s wishes would have failed on both the grounds that it is beneficial to the public as freemasonry societies are not accessible to the public as well the it is not charitably exclusive as it does not falls under the definition of religion.

Caesar’s fourth request in the will may falls under the trust for advancement of education. Once again here same as Caesar’s first will, any sporting activities within an educational context may in principle be promoted under this category. The Charities Bill 2005 clause 2(2)(g) provides that the advancement of amateur sport is a charitable purpose. Under English law, an organisation is a charity if it is established for exclusively charitable purposes. In theory, an amateur sports organisation registered with the Inland Revenue as a CASC could also be a charity under the "advancement of amateur sport" heading. As a charity, such a CASC would be obliged to comply with charity law. Probably, in most cases, it would be obliged to register with and be registered by the Charity Commission. Hence, in Caesar’s case, this could take effect as a charitable trust under advancement of education.

Lastly, the issue in Caesar’s last request here is whether it falls under other purposes that are beneficial to the community. This trust is the residual head of charity and is the most difficult, as Sir Samuel Romilly called it as in their nature charitable. The public element concerned here is the extent to which these benefits are made available to the public or a section of the public as opposed to a group of individuals. The problem arises as the purposes are restricted to a group of persons. A trust under this fourth head cannot be charitable if it is confined to persons bound together by a personal nexus. However, in Williams v IRC and IRC v Baddedley, there are dicta that’s suggest even if otherwise charitable, are subject to a stricter rule than trusts under the other three heads in relation to the selection of persons who are to benefit. At the same time, it is really important to differentiate between “relief extended to the few and a form of relief accorded to a selected few out of a larger number equally willing to take advantage of it.”. The only way to solve this was the more general and flexible test which was proposed by Lord McDermott. This was also supported by the House in Dingle v Turner through Lord Cross. With regard to Caesar’s case, his main aim was for everyone in the world, hence there is no “class in class” in this situation, and also this is for the sake of community benefit.