Distinguishing whether a trust is Charitable or for a Non-Charitable purpose will depend on the nature of the trust.

However if a trust promotes the welfare of animals generally then it is likely to be charitable. In Re Wedgwood4 a trust for the protection and benefit of animals was allowed, Swinfen Eady LJ in the Court of Appeal commented, ‘ …a gift for the benefit and protection of animals tends to promote and encourage kindness towards them, to discourage cruelty…promote feelings of humanity and morality generally’. Many cases have followed this decision, making it well established that trusts for the relief of cruelty to animals is charitable. Re Moss5 allowed for the welfare of cats and kittens, and a home for lost dogs allowed to be classed as charitable.

Referring back to this case it will not be charitable as it is not for the general benefit of animal welfare. Though it may be allowed as a non-charitable purpose trust, even though the beneficiaries of the trust are not human. In Re Dean6, £750 a year was left in a trust to a person to maintain a persons horses and dogs for however they live, this was upheld even though there was no human beneficiaries to the trust. Similarly in Re Hooper7, a trust was allowed when £1000 was left in a trust for the upkeep of graves and monuments.

So this trust should be allowed as it seems to have sufficient beneficiaries (although not human), the purpose is not too vague its specifically states its for the welfare of his pets, and the purpose is charitable to the pets.

2. I bequeath the sum of £100,000 out of my estate to the Redbrick Parish council so that they can build a new library for the benefit of the residents of the locality.

It is likely that building a new library could be regarded as charitable as it may fall within one of a possible two categories within the ‘heads’ of Charity.

A library could be classed as a ‘trust for the advancement of education’, this includes schools, colleges and universities thus this category is not restricted to teaching just in these places. The courts take a broad and rather general rule towards education.

Advancement of academic teaching and institutions, which provide teaching, are clearly charitable. Examples include Royal Choral Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners8, decided providing a choir is charitable, ‘education includes improving peoples knowledge not just classroom education’. In Attorney-General v Ross9, a students union was also held to be charitable as it furthered the institutions educational function. Also research activities as long as the research is useful, and of some benefit to the public is regarded charitable.10

Therefore it seems a possibility that as libraries are institutions, which encourage learning, and improving a person’s knowledge has an educational function to the general public (so it has the required public benefit) it could be argued to be charitable for the benefit of the trust.

In further consideration the ‘catch all’ category, ‘other purposes beneficial to the community’ may include the library as charitable as it does not fall specifically into any of the other three categories.  However this must benefit the community at large, which is for the court to decide, the benefit must not be too small or obscure.11 Establishing that a library should not be a problem, even though the society that it will be benefiting is only a local community this should be large enough to establish public benefit.

3. I direct my trustees to hold £50,000 on trust to provide for any of my friends or relatives, in the UK or in any EU member State, who may be in financially difficult circumstances at the date of my death.

This seems that it is a charitable trust; it is likely to fall into the category of ‘trusts for the relief of poverty’.

In the preamble to the 1601 Statue gives the definition of poverty as being, ‘aged, impotent and poor people’. Re Lewis decided there was no need to prove all three of these criteria’s as long as at least one was satisfied. This definition is also reasonably generous mainly due to the fact of social wealfare.13

Deciding whether someone is poor has not generally been too difficult for the courts, and is not an absolute term. It has often been described as having an inadequate weekly income and in the case of Re Coulthurst,14 poor has been referred to as having to ‘go short’. Meaning that poverty should not be something only people at the bottom of society should suffer, people may be able to fall into the category if they are having a ‘difficult time’ or sometimes trusts can be set up to give people help where they may need financial help in the future. For example Re Segelman15 where a trust was set up in the event of poverty where, ‘an unforeseen crisis: failure of a business venture, urgent repairs to a dwelling house or expenses brought on by reason of failing health’. Poor has also been described by the Charity Commission as, ‘anyone who cannot afford the normal things in life which most people take for granted’.

In this case it could also be debated whether or not a trust for the benefit of relatives and friends is for pubic benefit, however it is possible to make a charitable gift on trust for the relief of one’s poor or even to poor employees. Though in the past there have been some confused and almost conflicting decisions on this subject. In Re Scarisbrik16 a trust was set up for certain relations in needy circumstances, and was decided however the public benefit element could still be satisfied. Re Segelman17 also made a similar point when a trust for the benefit of family members was allowed providing the fact that they were ‘poor and needy’ could be satisfied, and the group of beneficiaries would not be too small, 26 people was said not to be too small.

In this case the only reason the trust may not succeed could be if the court decided the category or UK and EU countries was decided to be too broad. If the trust was too anyone in the world it would probably be too broad, however with the little information we have about the trust it is difficult to tell. However if the there is a list of named beneficiaries and the group is not too small the trust will probably succeed. It should not make any difference that the people may be in foreign countries.18

4. I leave the trustees of the Redbrick sports club, with which I have been associated for many years, the sum of £15,000, with a view to extending club premises so as to promote the physical fitness of club members.

Trusts for advancement of sport are examples of trusts for the advancement of education, which have been supported by numerous cases. In Re Denley’s Trust Deed19 a sports ground used for certain beneficiaries was allowed as a valid trust.

Thus the courts attitude has generally been relatively strict towards leisure time activities, in Re Mariette20 promotion of sport in an educational context was also allowed as charitable. ‘Spare-time’ has been regarded as a good thing by the courts as long as there is public benefit.  

In this case there seems no problem that promotion of physical fitness is education, although the fact this is for club members only gives light to whether the important public benefit factor will be satisfied?

To reduce uncertainty the Recreational Charities Act 1958 was enacted, this provision stated that facilities for recreation or other leisure time activities must provide ‘interests of social welfare’ with objectives of improving conditions of life for people they are primarily intended for and these people must fall into the category of; (1) persons needing such facilities because of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances. (2) The public at large or female members of the public.

Guild v Inland Revenue Commisioners21 also made similar points that it will be charitable if, ‘it leads to improvements of conditions of life either for a deprived class, or for the public at large, as long as the public has unrestricted access’.

This trust being set up for club members only means access is ‘somewhat’ restricted, meaning it may not satisfy public benefit element even though its educational. It will be dependent on the trust; it may be charitable only if a sufficient section of the community is benefited. From the information given about the trust it seems unlikely it will satisfy this as private clubs generally, for example golf clubs which only provide facilities for their members will not have charitable status evidently due to tax privileges. However more information is needed to be definite, though if this trust is disallowed to be as charitable due to this, it should be allowed as a non-charitable purpose trust.

---

Bibliography

• Hayton & Marshall – Commentary and Cases on The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies. (11th Edition)
• Robert Pearce and John Stevens – The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations. (3rd Edition)
• Histed ‘Rectification of Wills- Charitable Trusts for Poor Relations’ [1996] Conv 379
• Norman ‘Sporting Charities’ [1992] Conv 361
• Morris ‘Charities and the Contract Culture’ [1991] Conv 419-431
• Chris Chang & John Weldon- Equity & Trusts (Nutcases)
• Hanbury and Martin – Modern Equity (16th Edition)

---