NCPT - Structure Plan

NCPT = A trust which is for a fulfilment of a purpose rather than the benefit of a person
E.g = leaving £500 to pay for the maintenance of a private garden

INTRODUCTION:
Beneficiary principle = A trust must have ascertainable beneficiaries capable of enforcing its terms -
a natural or legal person with the right to enforce the trust against the trustees - rather than being for
a purpose - Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) - this has the exception of charities
- Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) = “Every...trust must have a definite object. There must be
- somebody, in whose favour the Court can decree performance.”
- Leahy v AG for New South Wales [1959] - Viscount Simonds = “A gift can be made to persons
but it cannot be made to a purpose or to an object … unless the purpose or object be
charitable”
- Generally Non- charitable purpose trusts will be void for lack of:
a) Identifiable human beneficiary - Re Astor Settlement Trusts [1952]
b) Lack or certainty of purpose - Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804)
There are expectations of this rule - Re Endacott [1959] - Sir Arthur Underhill = “concessions to
human weakness or sentiment”
1) Testamentary Trusts of Imperfect Obligation= TTIO
2) Direct/Indirect benefit to individuals = Re Denley Type Trust
Testamentary Trusts of Imperfect Obligation = TTIO:
The Requirements:
1) Is it Testamentary?
- Has it been written in the will?
- Yes = then it is testamentary
2) Is there a Trustee Willing to Execute Terms of Trust?
- Has there been a trustee allocated to execute terms and have they agreed to do so?
3) Does it Fall in a Recognised TTIO Category? - strict/limited categories; if outside such = void
- Per Harman LJ in Re Endacott [1959] - categories/exceptions are not to be extended:
“troublesome,anomalous and aberrant”
a) TRUSTS FOR A PARTICULAR ANIMAL
- For welfare of animals = public benefit therefore not NCPT but Charitable trust
- For care of certain specified animals = NCPT
- Pettingall v Pettingall (1842) - £50 per annum for upkeep of my ‘favourite black
mare’
- Re Dean (1889) - To maintain horses and hounds for 50 years, should they live
that long
b) TRUSTS TO ERECT AND MAINTAIN MONUMENTS AND GRAVES
- Trust to maintain church = charitable = Hoare v Osborne (1866)
- Individual monument/grave = NCPT
- Trimmer v Danby (1856) - “to erect a monument to my memory in St Paul’s
Cathedral among those of my brothers in art” - Valid
- Pirbright v Salwey [1896] - maintain grave + decorate with flowers - valid
 - Re Hooper [1932] - for care and upkeep of family graves and monuments - valid
- COMPARE = Re Endacott [1960] - to North Tawton Devon Parish Council - “for
the purpose of providing some useful memorial to myself” - failed
c) TRUSTS FOR THE SAYING OF PRIVATE MASSES
- Saying of masses in public = charitable - Re Hetherington [1990]
- Saying in private = NCPT - saying of catholic masses in private = Bourne v
Keane (1919)
- Distinction is questionable - Re Hetherington [1990]
4) Does it adhere to the Perpetuity Rules?:
- The perpetuity rule = Rule against alienability - this is for trusts for purposes - NCPT
- Same as common law period = life of identified person in being + 21 years
- Re Kelly (1932) life in being must be human
- Re Hooper [1932] - upkeep of family graves ‘so far as they can legally do so’ - no life in
being mentioned therefore will be just the 21 years
- Some rules apply to different categories:
a) Trusts for particular animals:
- Re Haines [1952] - Did not specify time frame but permitted trust -
average lifespan of cat is 16 years this cat is x years old he is not going to
accede 21 years
- COMPARE: Re Dean [1889] - However, as animals die, there was no
need for the perpetuity rule to be satisfied/stated.
b) Trusts to erect and maintain monuments and graves:
- Musset v Bingle [1892] - Trust for building monument; further trust for its
maintenance - Held the first disposition was valid because it was a
recognised exception to the no non-charitable purpose trust rule, (building
of monument should not take any longer than common law of 21 years)
and the second disposition was void for going against the rules of
perpetuity as no duration of maintenance was stated.
- CONTRAST WITH: Re Hooper [1932] - maintenance of tombs and
monuments was held to be valid - distinction here being it was stated that
they should maintain the monuments for ‘as long as they could legally do
so’ - held to be 21 years under common law
5) Capriciousness:
- NCPT fails if capricious
- Brown v Burdett (1882) - instructions to seal house for 20 years
- Regarding monuments and graves = McCaig’s Trustees v Kirk-Session of United Free
Church of Lismore (1915) - Scottish case - 11 bronze statues of her parents and nine
children to be built each to cost no less than £1000 - Lord Salvesen = doing such “a
sheer waste of money”
Re Denley Type Trust = Direct/Indirect benefit to individuals
1) Beneficiary Principle:
- NCPT void if lack of human beneficiary
- Operation of beneficiary principle is limited to ‘abstract or impersonal’ purposes
- Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] - sports ground for recreational purposes for employees
of company - property should be maintained and used: primarily for benefit of
employees and secondarily for benefit of other such persons, as any Ts may allow
 - So valid provided it: “directly or indirectly benefits ascertained or ascertainable
individual” = Goff J
2) Perpetuity rules:
- Perpetuity rule used in Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] Case:
- The perpetuity rule = Rule against alienability - this is for trusts for purposes - NCPT
- Same as common law period = life of identified person in being + 21 years
- Re Kelly (1932) life in being must be human
- Arguable that this is a trust for people however therefore could argue that should use:
- The perpetuity rule = Rule against remoteness of vesting = for people - Re Denley is a
Discretionary Trust therefore for people
- Perpetuities and Accumulations Act (PAA) 2009: up to 125 years
- This argument is seen in article: AJ Morris, “Private purpose trusts and the Re Denley
trust 50 years on” (2020) 34(3) Trust Law International 165. (Alec’s Article)
- The 'Wait and see rule’ s7 PAA 2009 - applies where an interest would be void if
property comes after the perpetuity period.
- ‘Wait and see’ rule means that whole trust is not void they close the class so those that
are within perpetuity period will benefit from trust - as long as exclusion means that
there is members of the class
3) Clear and not too wide/abstract purpose?:

CERTAINTIES
LIKE REVIEWING THREE
- Is it clear ?
- Is the language clear or too vague as to the purpose of the trust?
- Abstract = existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete
existence
- Too wide = too broad/big
4) Administrative Workability:
- Can this realistically be done?
- Saunders v Vautier [1841]
5) Capriciousness:
- NCPT fails if capricious
- Different from too abstract!!!
- Brown v Burdett (1882) - instructions to seal house for 20 years
Conclusion:
- Review points and briefly state why failed or valid trust.