Home / Summaries / WS3 Certainty of Objects and the Beneficiary Principle / public-benefit-charitable

Charities - Outright Gifts to Non-charitable Unincorporated Associations - The public aspect

10 important questions on Charities - Outright Gifts to Non-charitable Unincorporated Associations - The public aspect

The charitable purpose(s) must benefit which parts of the public?

To the public in general or to a sufficient section of the public (must not be negligible) but must not give rise to personal benefit.

Can the opportunity to benefit the public be unreasonably restricted?

Any restrictions must be legitimate, proportionate, rational and justifiable given the nature of the organisation's charitable aims.

Is research in finding a cure for a particular disease of benefit to the public in general?

Research benefits everyone and would not be reasonable to limit to a geographical area and charge fees.

Are there any objections to benefits that are restricted according to charitable needs?

There is no objection to benefits restricted according to charitable needs such as youth, e.g., children's home is charitable but restricted to people under 18.

In what circumstances are geographical restrictions acceptable?

Geographical restrictions are acceptable if they are related to the aims of the charity, e.g., a village hall (community-related recreational activities) that benefits only the inhabitants of the village.

Why was the further restriction of being Methodist held to be unreasonable? What is the main authority for this?

Providing religious, social, and physical training to Methodist West Ham residents was held not to be charitable since this was not a sufficient section of the public and therefore did not satisfy the public benefit requirement (IRC v Baddeley).

What if the benefit is restricted to those who have a personal nexus such as a familial relationship to the given individuals? What is the relevant authority?

Those who are intended to benefit should not be connected by the personal nexus of relationship to the testator (Re Compton).

Why did the children of the company's employees not constitute a sufficient section of the public in (Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust)?

A trust was created to provide education for the children of employees or former employees for the British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. It was held that establishing a trust to pay for the education of the children of the company's employees was not a public benefit due to the fact that there was a connection between the company who established the trust and the employees.

Do the stringent rules on providing a benefit to a sufficient section of the public apply in relation to relieving poverty under s.3(1)(a) Charities Act 2011? What is the main case authority?

This rule does not apply to trusts for the relief of poverty (Re Scarisbrick).

Explain why the independent school's committee (ISC) in (Independent School's Council v Charity) were unsuccessful in registering as a charitable trust?

Although charities are able to charge fees for the benefits which they provide, they must not exclude a significant number of people who cannot afford to pay the fees. On the facts, the ISC applied to be registered as a charitable trust on the ground of advancing education. It was held that schools whose sole object was the education of children who families could afford to pay were not charitable. The provisions of scholarships for example would enable it to be.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

WS3 Certainty of Objects and the Beneficiary Principle

View summary

A unique study and practice tool
Never study anything twice again
Get the grades you hope for
100% sure, 100% understanding

Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.

Charities - Outright Gifts to Non-charitable Unincorporated Associations - The public aspect

10 important questions on Charities - Outright Gifts to Non-charitable Unincorporated Associations - The public aspect

The charitable purpose(s) must benefit which parts of the public?

Can the opportunity to benefit the public be unreasonably restricted?

Is research in finding a cure for a particular disease of benefit to the public in general?

Are there any objections to benefits that are restricted according to charitable needs?

In what circumstances are geographical restrictions acceptable?

Why was the further restriction of being Methodist held to be unreasonable? What is the main authority for this?

What if the benefit is restricted to those who have a personal nexus such as a familial relationship to the given individuals? What is the relevant authority?

Why did the children of the company's employees not constitute a sufficient section of the public in (Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust)?

Do the stringent rules on providing a benefit to a sufficient section of the public apply in relation to relieving poverty under s.3(1)(a) Charities Act 2011? What is the main case authority?

Explain why the independent school's committee (ISC) in (Independent School's Council v Charity) were unsuccessful in registering as a charitable trust?

Summaries related to Discretionary Trusts

WS3 Certainty of Objects and the Beneficiary…

WS2 Overview of the Unregistered System

WS3 The Registered System

WS4 Co-ownership

WS7. Actions against trustees and fiduciaries

WS1 - Introduction to wills, trusts and diff…

WS2 - How to make valid gifts and create tru…

8. Actions against third parties

WS6. Running a trust. Fiduciary duties.

WS5. Running Trust

WS1 Article 267 Procedure

WS5 Leases