2013/ Q7

Consider the validity of the following bequests made by Alison , who died recently :

(a) £100,000 to provide tennis lessons for the poor

(b) £100,000 to promote graffiti art in greater London

(c) £100,000 to promote non traditional forms of marriage within the Church of England

(d) £100,00 to provide scholarship for the students from the Village of Valley View to attend the

University of London

The Village of Valley View has a total population of 500, with about 10 villagers attending a college or

university somewhere in the UK each year.

 (a) £100,00 to provide scholarship for the students from the Village of Valley View to attend the

University of London

The Village of Valley View has a total population of 500, with about 10 villagers attending a college or

university somewhere in the UK each year.

Charitable purpose Sc 3(1) : education

Public benefit :

 Benefit aspect- identifiable benefit

 Public aspect – public or section of the public

For education : ON THE PUBLIC ASPECT

Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd,

- which income of a trust fund was to be used to provide for the education of children of employees or former employees of
British-American Tobacco Co Ltd and its subsidiary or allied companies. Even though these companies together employed
over 110,000 people, it was held that the public benefit test was not satisfied. Lord Simonds emphasized that the key test to
identify whether the public element of the public benefit test was satisfied was whether the potential beneficiaries formed a
section of the community. This meant that they were not numerically negligible and the quality that distinguished them
 from other members of the community did not depend on their relationship to a particular individual or individuals,
such as a member of their family. This relationship was called the ‘personal nexus’

- In this case, the group of beneficiaries was identified by reference to employment with a particular employer and such
common employment did not make the employees a section of the community. It would, however, have been different if
the trust had provided for the education of children of those engaged in the tobacco industry in a named town,
because then the personal nexus would have been absent.

THERE ARE TWO ISSUES

1. PERSONAL NEXUS

2. NUMERIACLLY NEGLIGABLE

NUMERIACLLY NEGLIGABLE

CHARITY COMMISSION :

What a ‘sufficient section of the public’ means

Legal requirement: a charitable purpose can benefit a section of the public, but the section must be appropriate (or ‘sufficient’) in relation to
the specific purpose. (p. 194)
A sufficient section of the public are called a ‘public class’ of people.
There is not a set minimum number of people who have to benefit in order to be a ‘public class’.
Whether a section of the public is or is not a ‘public class’ is not the same for every purpose. What is sufficient for one purpose may not be
sufficient for another.
 Deciding what is a ‘sufficient’ section of the public
This is decided on a case by case basis.
Decisions about this are informed by what the courts have or have not accepted in other cases.
For example, the courts will generally accept that a purpose benefits a sufficient section of the public
if its beneficiaries are defined by:
 • where they live
 • a charitable need
 • a ‘protected characteristic’

Re Duffy [2013] EWHC Roth J held that a trust to provide amenity benefits for the residents and staff of a single residential care
home, even if a beneficial purpose, could not be charitable because a gift for the benefit of no more than 33 residents at a particular
care home could not be regarded as a gift to a sufficient section or class of the community as to meet the public benefit requirement.
This rule is not applied to trusts for the relief of poverty.

Can it be restricted to an area?

Restricting the benefit to people living in a particular town is likely to be acceptable, as constituting an appropriate section of the
public, whereas limiting it to people living in a particular street will not, although this will depend on the particular aims of the
charity. (The opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted, for example by reference to geographical location. It does
not follow that the benefit cannot be restricted to a particular area, but such a restriction must not be unreasonable)

(a) £100,000 to promote graffiti art in greater London

1. CONSIDER CHARITABLE PURPOSE Sc 3
2. PUBLIC BENEFIT

Whether there is an harm /detriment ?

National Anti Vivisection Society v IRC

National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC a society that existed to suppress experiments on animals was held by the House of
Lords not to be charitable due to detriment to the public outweighing benefit.

National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC (1948), the purpose was found not be charitable as a political purpose but in
addition to holding that the HL decided to weigh the conflicting moral and material utilities of, on the one hand, the
advancement of morals and education that would result from a suppression of vivisection and, on the other, the benefits to
medical science and research vivisection afforded. It decided that on balance the suppression of vivisection was not
beneficial to the public.

Re Foveaux (1895)