Section 3 Charities Act

Re Coulthurst [1951] – wide definition of poverty, including those who might “go short”.

Re Sanders [1954] – “working classes” is not indicative of poverty.

Re Niyazi WT [1973] – Purpose trust (hostel construction) for working class allowed.

AG v Charity Commission [2012] – more relaxed definition of public benefit than normal allowed.

Re Scarisbrick [1951] – allowed “needy relations” of settlor children under public benefit.

Dingle v Turner [1972] – poor employee trust allowed under public benefit (as aimed to relieve poverty among a particular description of poor people).

Re Segalman [1996] – controversially allowed a trust for “poor and needy” relations

Re Gwyon [1930] – trust for knickers for boys in a certain place not allowed as it did not exclusively help poor. 

IRC v McMullen [1981] – education defined as “the picture of a balanced and systematic process of instruction, training and practice containing… spiritual, moral, mental and physical elements”. Thus allowed sports as education if linked to the young.

Examples: 1. Re Lopes – London Zoo 2. Re Dupree – Chess tournament for youths 3. Re Hopkins – research into contested authorship of Shakespeare works 4. Re Bestermans WT [1980] – research allowed if subject matter is a useful subject of study and knowledge will be disseminated to others.

Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission [2011] – two senses of public benefit for educational trusts:

i.                     Nature of purpose must be a benefit

OR

ii.                   Those who benefit must be sufficiently numerous to constitute a section of the public

Re Koettgen [1954] – preference for a private class of individuals in charitable purposes allowed. Criticised in IRC v Educational Grants Association [1967]. 

Neville Estates v Madden [1962] – neutral stance between different religions but assumes some religion better than none.

Funnell [1996] – court will not discriminate against religion with small number of followers

S3 (2) CA 2011 includes multiple deities and no deity but still requires worship. 

1.       Section  3 (1d) – Health – private hospital can be charitable but not profit making – Re Resch [1969]

2.       Section  3 (1e) – advancement of citizenship or community development

3.       Section  3 (1f) – arts, culture, heritage, science – Re Dlius [1957] Composer Case, Royal Choral Soc [1943], Re Pinion [1965] did not allow “pile of junk” as art.

4.       Section  3 (1g) – amateur sport

5.       Section  3 (1h) – promotion of human rights, conflict resolution, racial harmony, equality or diversity – cannot be a political trust McGovern v AG [1982] (e.g changing the law, particular political party, influence government policy).

1.       Section  3 (1i) – environmental protection

2.       Section  3 (1j) – relief of those…[disadvantaged]

3.       Section  3 (1k) – Animal Welfare – Re Wedgewood [1915] also enhance morality and make us better people

4.       Section  3 (1l) - efficiency of army, police etc -

5.       Section  3 (1m) – other purposes (regarded as being in the spirit of the 12 heads, or Section 5 areas, or those areas falling under charity law).

The CA 2011 relaxed the requirements of impracticability and impossibility for cy-pres. Section 62 enables the original purposes of the gift to be altered where:

1.       Original purpose have been wholly or partially fulfilled or cannot be carried out according to the directions given and the spirit of the gift

2.       Where the OP provides only a partial use of the property given.

3.       Where the property given/property given for similar purpose can be used more effectively together for common purposes.

4.       Where the OP referred to an area which has ceased to be a unit

5.       Where the OP has been wholly or partially: a.       Provided for by other means  b.      Ceased to be charitable in law  c.       Ceased to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property

The references to appropriate considerations in paras 3, 4 and 5c refer to the spirit of the relevant gift and the social and economic circumstances that prevail at the time of the proposed alteration of the OP.