Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts
and Unincorportated Associations
1.1 Tension between the wish to give effect
to settlor's intention and the need for
trusts to be subject to the court's control.
associations (e.g. clubs
and societies) present a
difficulty because they
do not have separate
legal personality and
cannot, therefore, hold
1.3 At the heart of problems is the
'beneficiary principle'; 'there must be
somebody, in whose favour the Court can
1.3.1 Morice v Bishop of Durham 
22.214.171.124 Law wants
to make sure
126.96.36.199 Law doesn't like imposing
duties on trustees where
benefits do not go to
188.8.131.52 If a trust is performed, court will
make sure that it is - but how do
they do that for PURPOSES?
184.108.40.206.1 McPhail and Doulton
1.3.6 Has the principle
220.127.116.11.1 Trust for benefit of testator's horses
and hounds. Not a general charitable
intention due to being just HIS,
instead of general animal welfare.
18.104.22.168.1 Holidays for workers; residuary request. Old
Bradfordian club (uninc. assoc) - NCPT.
22.214.171.124 Bowman v
126.96.36.199.1 Outlawing religion. What if it had been
on trust? Would have been regarded
188.8.131.52 Re Astor's
184.108.40.206.1 Promoting the integrity of newspapers.
2.1 General rule - ts for purposes which are not 'charitable' in law are VOID.
220.127.116.11 Not for charities,
not for specified
2.2 Other problems
2.2.1 Lack of
18.104.22.168 Morice v
22.214.171.124 Re Astor's Settlement
2.2.2 Perpetuity -
126.96.36.199 Brown v Burdett (1882)
188.8.131.52.1 Sealing up
windows and doors
for 20 years -
184.108.40.206 McCaig v
220.127.116.11.1 Bankers wanting to erect statues in memory of themselves.
18.104.22.168 Re Trusts of
22.214.171.124.1 Money raised for elderly
deaf/dumb sisters -
money held to have been
given on trust.
126.96.36.199.1 Not saved by the
Money festered in
2.3 However - NCPs which
are incidental or
subsidiary to charitable
purposes will NOT
invalidate a charitable
2.4 'Testamentary Purpose Trusts of
Imperfect Obligation' - Exceptions!
2.4.1 Four categories
recognised - not a
logical set, just seem to
2.4.2 Erection or maintenance of
tombs, graves, or monuments
188.8.131.52 Re Hooper
184.108.40.206.1 £1000 left to erect various monuments of his family who
were buried in various places around the country. Held
after 21 years money left over would go on resulting trust.
Private. If had been part of church = charitable.
2.4.3 Care and
220.127.116.11 Pettingall v
18.104.22.168.1 General care of animals =
charitable. Trust for favourite
black mare - valid trust.
2.4.4 Saying of masses
22.214.171.124.1 In public =
2.4.5 Fox hunting
126.96.36.199 Re Thompson 
2.4.6 These are not to be
extended. Courts are
188.8.131.52 Re Endacott 
184.108.40.206.1 Testator gave
2.4.7 Are subject to the rule
against inalienability of capital
220.127.116.11 21 years?
law lives in
18.104.22.168 Re Dean
2.5 Problems of construction
2.5.1 Distinguish between
22.214.171.124 A trust for
126.96.36.199 A trust for
those likely to
188.8.131.52.1 Trust for
- money goes
back to donors.
184.108.40.206 Re Andrews
220.127.116.11.1 Education of boys.
Money left over. Held
money given to boys
absolutely. If purposes -
money go to RT once
Trusts for persons.
18.104.22.168 Re Bowes 
22.214.171.124.1 £5000 upon trust for planting
trees for shelter on estate. T
for purposes? Court held not
for purpose - for two tenants.
126.96.36.199 Re Denley's Trust Deed 
188.8.131.52.1 Land given on trust for use
as a sports ground for
employees of company.
Not charitable (personal
nexus). Looked at ben
principle. Judge said it was
outside. ONly affected
abstract and impersonal
purposes, said Judge.
NCPTs is not
that the trust is
for an object or
se, but that
there is no
trust...' Goff J.
184.108.40.206 Re Sanderson's Trust (1857)
220.127.116.11.1 'There are two classes of cases between which the general distinction is
sufficiently clear...but difficult to ascertain. If a gross sum be given, or if the
whole income of the property be given, and a special purpose be assigned
for that gift, this Court always regards this gift as absolute, and the purpose
merely as the motive of the gift, and therefore holds that the gift takes effect
as to the whole sum or the whole income, as the case may be.'
2.5.2 Distinguish between trust
18.104.22.168 Conservative and Unionist
Central Office v Burrell 
2.5.3 Barclays Bank Ltd v
Quistclose  -
2.6 Are there alternatives?
22.214.171.124 'A valid power is not to
be spelt out of an invalid
126.96.36.199.1 BUT can set up express power. However, is permissive only.
188.8.131.52.2 IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust 
184.108.40.206 Re Douglas (1887)
2.6.2 Mandate (inter vivos only)
220.127.116.11 Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell 
18.104.22.168 Can change its objects
2.6.5 Gift to Charity 1
upon the purpose
not being carried
out, thereafter to
22.214.171.124 Re Tyler
2.7 Scope for reform?
you can be
3.1 What is a
3.1.1 It is not a legal
entity, nor is it a
3.1.2 Defined as having: 2 or more persons bound
together for (non-business) common purposes;
mutual rights and duties arising from a contract
between them; rules to determine who controls the
organisation and its funds and on what terms;
members are able to join and leave at will (i.e.
126.96.36.199 Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell 
3.1.3 Some refer to 'inward-turning' (i.e. all
about the members) and 'outward-turning'
(fulfilling purposes for people other than
the members) assocs.
3.2 How does a UA hold property?
3.2.1 Since a UA
such - it only
has an assoc
3.2.2 Ts will hold the legal title of the land, shares etc. on
trust - this is an administrative arrangement (not a trust
in the full blown sense) - usually at the direction of the
committee, unless the assoc is charitable or unless valid
trusts are otherwise declared.
188.8.131.52 Re Bucks Constabulary Widows' and Orphans' Fund (No 2) 
3.2.3 Inter vivos gifts to UAs
rarely cause a problem.
184.108.40.206 The suggestion that the
members, particularly of OT
assoc, are the intended bens is
problematic and likely to be at
odds with the settlor's intention
220.127.116.11 Often challenged by
residuary legatees or
next of kin
18.104.22.168.1 Non-charitable and so money should go to NoK
22.214.171.124 If the purposes are charitable, these
problems do not arise.
3.2.5 Difficulties may also be encountered
when UA is dissolved or becomes
moribund. What is to happen to the
funds? The property has to go
3.3 Bequests to UAs
3.3.1 How are we to construe a bequest to a UA?
There are three or four generally accepted
theories as to how property might be held...
126.96.36.199 1. As a gift to existing
members, as joint
tenants or tenants in
188.8.131.52.1 Leahy v
for New South
184.108.40.206.1.1 Land holdings left to various groups of nuns. Some were in cloistered
communities (so not charitable). Intended for individual
benefits/beneficiaries. Actually spread all over the world and tried to
divide up. Clearly intended for endowment.
220.127.116.11 2. As a (class) gift to be held on trust for present and
future members. (Unlikely to reflect intention?)
18.104.22.168.1 Note rule against remoteness of vesting (void
at common law, but note effects of the PAA
1964 and 2009 - wait and see provisions)
22.214.171.124.2 Usually left out
now due to
126.96.36.199.3 Re Grant's
188.8.131.52 3. As a gift to members, subject to their
respective contractual rights and liabilities
towards each other as members. How
coherent is this theory? (What about
s.53(1)(c) LPA 1925?) (A bit of trust, a bit of
contract) More modern and pragmatic.
184.108.40.206.1 Re Recher's Will Trusts 
220.127.116.11.1.1 Bequest to the London Provisional Anti-Viv Society.
Ceased to exist before testator died. BUT property
would have been held subject to contracts.
18.104.22.168.2 Re Horley Town Football Club 
22.214.171.124.2.1 On trust for securing permanent football ground. Land sold in 2002 for
£4m. £850k spent and £2m on new facilities. Property was to provide for
purposes of the club - but not charitable. Contract holding theory.
126.96.36.199.3 Re Grant's Will Trusts 
188.8.131.52.3.1 Judge went against contract holding theory - matter of construction. Clearly made
as a trust and method bequest was made - subject to control of outside party.
184.108.40.206 4. On trust for the purposes of the assoc.
(Going to be close to what the testator meant.)
220.127.116.11.1 Charitable purposes - no problems!
18.104.22.168.1.1 Neville Estates v
22.214.171.124.2 NC purposes
126.96.36.199.2.1 Re Lipinski's Will Trusts
188.8.131.52.2.1.1 Half of the residue left on T to HJM
assoc to be used solely for the
completion of the new buildings for
the assoc. and/or improving the old
ones. Particular purpose. Denley or
CH theory? Either way, judge would
uphold it. Contract and trusts got
confused and mixed.
184.108.40.206.2.2 Re Grant's Will Trusts 
3.4 Dissolution of UAs
3.4.1 What happens to any
funds held by a UA
immediately before it is
220.127.116.11 Charitable - cy pres
18.104.22.168 Otherwise; 1. bona vacantia; 2. resulting trust;
3. divided between the members.
22.214.171.124 Cunnack v Edwards  - 1. BV
126.96.36.199.1 Fund for members' widows. All members
dead and last widow died - £1200+ left in
'pot'. Friendly soc - led by legislation. Held
not charity - no room for RT. Went to crown.
No T. No ben. int. remaining at time of
188.8.131.52.2 Friendly Society Act - on dissolution, money NOT to be distributed between members.
184.108.40.206 Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund  - 2. RT
220.127.116.11.1 Courts don't like BV. Then divided between 17 surviving people after money sat in Treasury until 90s.
18.104.22.168 Re West Sussex Constabulary's Benevolent Fund Trusts  1. BV AND 2. RT
22.214.171.124.1 Fund for dependants of members of police force.
Joined another force - money? For benefit of 3rd
parties. Subscriptions, raffles etc., collecting boxes
- BV. Donations and legacies - RT.
126.96.36.199 Re Bucks Constabulary Fund Friendly Society (No 2)  3. M
188.8.131.52.1 Another police fund. Amalgamated with
other force. Judge clearly didn't like Sussex
case. Distinguished by using FS Act. No trust
at all. Decided to belonged to members.
Nature of assoc not important in this case!
184.108.40.206 Re Horley Town Football
Club  3. M
220.127.116.11.1 Not dissolution case. CH theory applies - division between members. What shares?
Bucks judge - any division should be equal as a matter of contract and law, NOT
equity and trusts. Full/associate members. Not fair to give ass. mems. as much as full.
18.104.22.168 Hanchett-Stamford v AG
 3. M
22.214.171.124.1 Performing animals. Not charitable. Money held according to terms of assoc. contract
while assoc. exists - when assoc. ends, any surplus funds go to member of assoc.
126.96.36.199 Influencing factors - how
property has been held;
source of funds; nature of
assoc; amount of money.