For a trust to be charitable it must meet three requirements. Firstly, the gift must be for the purpose which falls ‘within the spirit and intendment’ of the Statute of Charitable Use 1601. Secondly, the trust must promote public benefit and thirdly, the purposes must be wholly and exclusively charitable.
The first test is identified by Lord MacNaghten in which he stated that a trust will be charitable if its purpose is for either, the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion or for other purposes which benefit the community.
The first bequest made by Caesar is to leave £100 000 of his estate to Redbrick Council so they can build a sports club mainly for the benefit of younger and unemployed residents of the locality.
In Re Sanders Wills Trust a similar trust for the provision of housing for the benefit of working class failed as was seen as non-charitable. However in Re Niyazis Wills Trust a construction for the benefit of working class men was held as charitable although stated as ‘desperately near the border line.’ One would need to establish if the young and unemployed are actually the needy. If the decision in Re Sanders is to be followed, the trust in dispute would not successfully meet the requirements for relief of poverty. However if one follows Re Niyazis, one could say the gift would succeed but be at the very border line. However this matter is up to the courts discretion.
As the trust has no religious basis it would fail under the advancement of religion. One could then consider the advancement of education. Rigby LJ stated in Re Macduff, that a gift for the advancement of education ‘is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined with teaching or education.’ One could ask the question as to whether a sports club would be sufficient as to amount to education or teaching. Unless this is proven, the gift would fail under this head. One could imagine that the gift is more likely to succeed as being charitable under the forth head: Other purposes beneficial to the community. Here one needs to look at social, recreational and sporting trusts. As in the case of R v Nottage,a trust to provide sporting facilities was not charitable unless, the facilities are for pupils of schools or universities or for the armed forces, which the case at hand clearly is not. However this view is very much under reconsideration as it is thought that the promotion of sport as a means of promoting health or fitness or education for people of all ages is charitable, making the case at hand charitable. However, in I.R.C v Glasgow Police it was held that the provision of mere recreation was not charitable. The Recreational Charities Act 1958 removed the uncertainty of mere recreational trusts and said they can be charitable. Section 1 (1) states, ‘it shall be and be deemed always to have been charitable to provide, or assist in the provision of, facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation, if the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare.’ This Act along with case authority, states that a gift for the benefit of a public sports centre would be held charitable. Relating this to the case at hand, it can reasonably be said that the bequest is charitable under the forth head.
