97:, transferred land to trustees to, under clause 2(c), "be maintained and used as and for the purpose of a recreation or sports ground primarily for the benefit of the employees of the company and secondarily for the benefit of such other person or persons (if any) as the trustees may allow to use the same". Clause 2(j) added that the employees would cease entitlement if the number dropped below 75% of them "or if the said land shall at any time cease to be required or to be used by the said employees as a sports ground or if the company shall go into liquidation then the trustees shall ... convey the said land to the General Hospital Cheltenham or as it shall direct." It was argued that this was a non-charitable purpose trust and should fall foul of the beneficiary principle.
132:
character, and it will be seen that clause 2 (d) of the trust deed expressly states that, subject to any rules and regulations made by the trustees, the employees of the company shall be entitled to the use and enjoyment of the land. Apart from this possible exception, in my judgment the beneficiary principle of In re Astor's
Settlement Trusts. which was approved in In re Endacott, decd. - see particularly by Harman L.J. - is confined to purpose or object trusts which are abstract or impersonal. The objection is not that the trust is for a purpose or object per se, but that there is no beneficiary or
28:
100:
The claimants were the trustees. The first defendant was the company, who argued clause 2(j) was void for uncertainty, and if not clause 2(c) was also void, and hence the property would be on resulting trust to the company. The second defendant was an employee representing the others, who argued that
148:
There has been an interesting argument on the question of perpetuity, but it seems to me, with all respect to that argument, that there is an earlier obstacle which is fatal to the validity of this bequest, namely, that a gift on trust must have a cestui que trust, and there being here no cestui que
131:
to apply to the court to enforce the trust, in which case the beneficiary principle would, as it seems to me, apply to invalidate the trust, quite apart from any question of uncertainty or perpetuity. Such cases can be considered if and when they arise. The present is not, in my judgment, of that
124:
I think there may be a purpose or object trust, the carrying out of which would benefit an individual or individuals, where that benefit is so indirect or intangible or which is otherwise so framed as not to give those persons any
163:
A gift can be made to persons (including a corporation) but it cannot be made to a purpose or to an object: so also," - and these are the important words - "a trust may be created for the benefit of persons as
343:
172:
Where, then, the trust, though expressed as a purpose, is directly or indirectly for the benefit of an individual or individuals, it seems to me that it is in general outside the mischief of the beneficiary
168:
but not for a purpose or object unless the purpose or object be charitable. For a purpose or object cannot sue, but, if it be charitable, the
Attorney-General can sue to enforce it.
179:
274:
101:
clause 2(c) is valid, and if not then clause 2(j) would be void. The third defendants was the
Cheltenham Group Hospital Management Committee, which under the
120:
held that the trust was valid, because it could be construed as being ultimately for the benefit of people and thus made to work. He said the following.
218:
75:". It held that so long as the people benefitting from a trust can at least be said to have a direct and tangible interest, so as to have the
155:
286:
454:
377:
367:
211:
449:
204:
444:
102:
262:
333:
140:, 16th ed. (1964), p. 17, and, in my judgment, with the possible exception I have mentioned, rightly so. In
106:
109:, argued that clause 2(c) is void, and that clause 2(j) is valid, so that they would get the grounds.
235:
356:
27:
387:
72:
90:
8:
402:
391:
252:
247:
68:
185:
438:
196:
117:
127:
77:
298:
94:
159:
Viscount
Simonds, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, said:
322:
183:Ch 20, although this would now be superseded given
436:
226:
212:
345:Bermuda Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989
177:Goff J applied the list certainty test from
156:Leahy v Attorney-General for New South Wales
219:
205:
26:
378:Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
368:Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964
81:to enforce a trust, it would be valid.
437:
200:
71:case, concerning the policy of the "
105:was successor to the assets of the
13:
14:
466:
103:National Health Service Act 1946
455:1969 in United Kingdom case law
414:
334:Recognition of Trusts Act 1987
136:. The rule is so expressed in
1:
426:
180:IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust
89:In 1936 the settlor company,
263:Re Astor's Settlement Trusts
144:, decd., Harman J. said 36:
93:Ltd, from Sunningend Works,
7:
450:High Court of Justice cases
192:
112:
107:Cheltenham General Hospital
10:
471:
227:Trust enforceability cases
385:
375:
365:
353:
341:
331:
319:
307:
295:
283:
271:
259:
244:
236:Morice v Bishop of Durham
232:
149:trust the gift must fail.
56:Certainty, express trusts
55:
50:
42:
34:
25:
20:
408:
357:Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley
84:
445:English trusts case law
311:Re Denley's Trust Deed
175:
170:
151:
64:Re Denley’s Trust Deed
21:Re Denley’s Trust Deed
388:Beneficiary principle
161:
146:
122:
91:H.H. Martyn & Co.
73:beneficiary principle
403:English trusts law
392:English trusts law
275:Re Andrew's Trusts
248:Saunders v Vautier
69:English trusts law
398:
397:
186:McPhail v Doulton
166:cestuis que trust
60:
59:
462:
421:
418:
346:
221:
214:
207:
198:
197:
134:cestui que trust
30:
18:
17:
470:
469:
465:
464:
463:
461:
460:
459:
435:
434:
429:
424:
420:1 Ch 373, 382-4
419:
415:
411:
399:
394:
381:
371:
361:
349:
344:
337:
336:, Sch 1, art 18
327:
315:
303:
291:
279:
267:
255:
240:
228:
225:
195:
138:Lewin on Trusts
115:
87:
67:1 Ch 373 is an
12:
11:
5:
468:
458:
457:
452:
447:
433:
432:
428:
425:
423:
422:
412:
410:
407:
406:
405:
396:
395:
386:
383:
382:
376:
373:
372:
366:
363:
362:
354:
351:
350:
348:ss 12A and 12B
342:
339:
338:
332:
329:
328:
320:
317:
316:
308:
305:
304:
296:
293:
292:
284:
281:
280:
272:
269:
268:
260:
257:
256:
245:
242:
241:
233:
230:
229:
224:
223:
216:
209:
201:
194:
191:
114:
111:
86:
83:
58:
57:
53:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
467:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
443:
442:
440:
431:
430:
417:
413:
404:
401:
400:
393:
389:
384:
379:
374:
369:
364:
359:
358:
352:
347:
340:
335:
330:
325:
324:
318:
313:
312:
306:
301:
300:
294:
289:
288:
282:
277:
276:
270:
265:
264:
258:
254:
250:
249:
243:
238:
237:
231:
222:
217:
215:
210:
208:
203:
202:
199:
190:
188:
187:
182:
181:
174:
169:
167:
160:
158:
157:
150:
145:
143:
139:
135:
130:
129:
121:
119:
110:
108:
104:
98:
96:
92:
82:
80:
79:
74:
70:
66:
65:
54:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
416:
355:
321:
310:
309:
297:
285:
273:
261:
246:
234:
184:
178:
176:
171:
165:
162:
154:
152:
147:
141:
137:
133:
128:locus standi
126:
123:
116:
99:
88:
78:locus standi
76:
63:
62:
61:
15:
299:Re Endacott
253:EWHC Ch J82
239:EWHC Ch J80
439:Categories
427:References
380:ss 5, 7-11
370:ss 1 and 3
326:EWCA Civ 3
302:EWCA Civ 5
173:principle.
153:Again, in
142:In re Wood
95:Cheltenham
38:High Court
290:1 WLR 729
323:Re Osoba
314:1 Ch 373
193:See also
113:Judgment
51:Keywords
46:1 Ch 373
43:Citation
360:UKHL 12
287:Re Shaw
278:2 Ch 48
251:(1841)
266:Ch 534
118:Goff J
409:Notes
85:Facts
35:Court
390:and
441::
189:.
220:e
213:t
206:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.