This document summarizes the legal definition and scope of charity in England based on a seminal case. It discusses the four principal categories of charitable trusts: (1) relief of poverty, (2) advancement of education, (3) advancement of religion, and (4) other purposes beneficial to the community. It provides detailed explanations and case examples for each category. For example, it describes what constitutes relief of poverty, how education is broadly defined, how religious trusts must promote monotheistic beliefs, and examples of trusts that fall under "other purposes beneficial to the community."

1. CHARITABLE TRUST
In Commissioner of income Tax v Pemsel, Lord
Mc Naughten summarised the scope of charity.
“Charityinits legal sense comprises four principal
divisions; trusts for the relief of poverty, trust for
the advancement of education; trust for the
advancement of religion; and trust for other
purposesbeneficial tothe community, not falling
under any of the preceding heads.”
1) Relief Of Poverty
2) Advancement of Education
3) Advancement of religion
4) Other purposes beneficial to the
community
1- RELIEF OF POVERTY
 No definitionof poverty.Itdoesnot mean
destitution. It means that there is a want,
that a person has ‘to go short’ of
something.
A) Disjunctive construction :
JosephRowntree Memeorial Trust Housing Vs AG
Held:“The words“ aged,impotent and poor must
be read disjunctively, ie. separately. It would be
absurdto require thatthe aged must be impotent
as it would be require to impotent to be aged or
poor to be aged or impotent.”
B) Attributable Condition
What isessential tothe charitable purpose is that
it shouldrelieve aged,impotent and poor people.
Ex.: Aids sufferer, cancer patient etc
Re Lewis (1955) Ch 104: A testator made a
bequest: “I leave to 10 blind girls, Tottenham
residentsif possible the sum of £100 each. I leave
to each 10 blind boys Tottenham residents if
possible the sum of £100.
Held : A valid charitable bequest
Re Bradbury (1950) 2 All ER 1150
A trust for the maintenance of aged persons in a
nursing home. Held : charitable
C) Poverty is not destitution
Poor is a relative term.
An individual need not be destitute in order to
qualify as a poor person within the preamble.
Re Coulthurst (1951) Ch 661
A fundto b applied for the benefit of the widows
and orphaned children of deceased officers and
deceased ex-officers of Coutts and Com.
Held : It is a relative term. The court will look at
the lifestyle of the people who will benefit.
Re Niyazi ‘s Will Trust (1978) 1 WLR 910.
£15,000 for the construction of or as a
contribution towards the cost of working men’s
hostel, to be created in Famagusta Cyprus
Held : Charitable trust
Re Sander’s Will Trust ( 1954) Ch. 265
A codicil “to provide or assist in providing
dwellings for the working classes and their
familiesresidentinthe areaof Pembroke Dock . . .
Or within a radius 5 miles there from.
Held: Not charitable. “Working class” did not
indicate poor person.
d) Not subject to Public Benefit.
Trust for the relief of poverty form an exception
to the principle that every charitable trust must
be for the public benefit.
The exceptioncoversboththe pooremployer and
their families.
However there must be primary intent to relieve
poverty amongst a particular class of person. If
primary intent is to benefit particular person the
trust is a private one and not charitable.
Dingle v Turner (1972) AC 601
Trust to apply income in paying pensions to poor
employees of a company.

2. HOL reaffirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision
that it was charitable.
2- ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION
 Doesnot limittopoorclassroom teaching.
 Broad definition : teaching of ethic,
research arts etc.
Incorporated Council of Law of Reporting From
England and Wales v AG (1972) Ch. 73.
Buckeley LJ : It now extends to improvement of
useful branch of human knowledge and public
dissemination.”
Now the category has grown to cover a very wide
range of educational, eg : schools, universities,
nursery, museums, zoos, public libraries and and
cultural activities such as drama, literature and
fine arts.
a) Research
Requires more than mere accumulation of
knowledge. But sharing or teaching : must show
that public will benefit.
Re Hopkins (1965) Ch 669
A gift to the Francis Bacon Society : to be
earmarkedandappliedtowardsfinding the bacon
Shakespeare manuscripts.
H: Valid Charitable trust
Re Shaw ( 1957) 1 WLR 729.
Residuaryof George Bernard Shaw to be devoted
for the research : Advantages to be gained by
substituting the present 26 letter by a new
proposed British alphabet of 40 letters.
Held :Gift not charitable
b) Artistic and Aesthetic Education
Royal Choral Society v IRC (1943) 2 All ER 613.
Society to form and maintain a choir in order to
promote the practice and performance of choral
works by way of concert or choral pageant in the
Royal Albert Hall. H: Charitable society.
Re Delius (1957) Ch 299.
Widow of a composer – Frederick Delius gave her
residuary estate for the advancement of Delius’s
musical works “.. To apply the royalties income
and income form the residual trust fund towards
the advancement of musical works of my late
husband..” H: A valid charitable trust.
d) Extra Curricular Activities
London Hospital Medical College v IRC (1976) 1
WLR 613
Held:Studentsunionisconsidered as charitable –
part of educational purpose of college and
university.
e) Political Propaganda in Subtle Form
Trust for political purposes is not charitable
Eg: Trust for the release of prisoners of
conscience, for alteration of the law relating
marriage and also to promote the principles of a
political party are not charitable
Bowman v Secular Society [1945] Ch 16
Lord Parker: ‘a trust for the attainmentof political
objecthasalwaysbeen heldinvalidnot because it
is illegal . . . but because the court has no means
of judgingwhether a proposed change in law will
or will not be for the public benefit
Re Hopkinson ( 1949) 1 All R 346
VaiseyJ : ‘political propaganda masquerading . . .
As education is not education for the purpose of
charity.
Re Koepller’s Will Trust ( 1986) Ch 423
A gift to further the work of educational project
was held charitable even though the testators
express aspiration were not regarded as
charitable.

3. The project involved conferences with political
flavour but it did not further the interest of a
particular political party.
f) Sports as part of Education
Promotion of sports per se is not regarded as
charitable. Except if the promotion takes place in
school and universities.
In Re Marriette (1915) 2 Ch 284
£ 1000 for building a squash court in a school and
£ 100 to provide price money in the school for
athletic events. Held : Charitable
IRC v Mac Mullen (1915) 2 Ch 284
Trust for the furtherance of education in schools
and university in UK and encouraging and
facilitatingthe studentsplayingfootball and other
games and sports at such institution.
Held : A Valid Charitable Trust. Education is not
restricted to classroom teaching
Trust of sport outside educational facilities and
are not charitable unless they come within the
scope of the Recreational Charities Act 1958
Re Duprees Deed Trust (1945) Ch 16
£ 5000 to establish annual chess tournament for
young boys under 21
Held : CT. Purposeful activities for the young
e) Education and Public Benefit.
The Court will not allow the trust if some people
to be escaped from tax in order to educate their
children.
OPPENHEIM V TOBACCO SECURITIES LTD (1951)
AC 297:
Trust for the educationof childrenof employee of
British American Tobacco Co Ltd and any of its
subsidiaries.
Held: Not charitable. No connection with the
public
RE KOETTGEN’S WILL TRUST ( 1954) Ch 252
Trust for the promotion of commercial education
for those who could not afford to pay it for
themselves,withapreference tobe givenof up to
75% of the income to the employees of a
particular firm. Held: Charitable
3- ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION
No absolute definition of religion. Monotheistic
belief was an essential qualification.
Meaning of Religion
Bowman v Secular Society ( 1917) AC 406 : Lord
Parker: “any form of monotheistic theism will be
recognisedasreligion.Religionrequiresaspiritual
belief, a faith, and recognition of some higher
unseenpowerwhichisentitledtoworship. It may
include (bit greater than) morality or
recommended way of life.”
Ethic is not religion.
RE SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY (1980) 1 WLR
1565.
Held: “Religion is concerned with man’s religion
with God and ethics concerned with man’s
relations with man…. It seems to me that two of
the essential attributes of religion are faith and
worship.”
UNITED GRND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE AND
ACCEPTED MASONS OF ENGLAND AND WALES V
HOLBORN BOROUGH COUNCIL (1957) 1 WLR
1080
Donovan J: “to advance religion means ‘to
promote it, to spread its message ever wider
among mankind; to take positive steps to sustain
and increase religious belief”
THORNTON V HOWE (1862) 31 Beav. 14
A trust forthe publicationof the writingof Joanna
Southcott who claimed that she was pregnant
with a child by the Holy Ghost and would give
birth to the new Prophet.

4. Held: Charitable and the object was for the
advancement of religion.
No Priority Among Various Religions
NEVILLE ESTATES LTD V MADDEN (1962) Ch 832.
As between different religions, the law stands
neutral.
Public Benefit and Religious Trust
It can be fulfilled by 2 ways, namely;
A) Provide activities which are available to the
public
B) The presence among the public at a place of
worship have been improved.
Re Hetherington Gibbs v Mc Donnell (1989) 2 All
ER 129.
A trust for the celebration of a religious rites.
Held:Charitable.Itdoes confer a sufficient public
benefit and improves those who attend it.
Nerville Estates v Madden (1962) Ch 852
A trust fora synagogue whichwasnotopento the
public,onlytothe memberof Catford Synagogue.
Held: Charitable forthe advancement of religion.
OTHER PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO THE
COMMUNITY
 This is a very wide category.
 The list is not exhaustive.
 It comprises trust which the Court have
held charitable but do not come within
the other three heads.
The test: The test is what the law treats as
charitable NOT what the testator thought was
charitable.
Benefit
1) Anti-vivisection
National Anti Vivisection Society v IRC (1948) AC
31
A societyclaimedexemption from tax. The object
was the suppression of vivisection. In England
there was a strong lobby to stop the elements of
experimenting on animals
The Court had to consider two things
1) The protection of animals from cruelty is a
charitable purposes.
2)Vivisectionanecessarypartof medical research;
it will benefit the community
Held: The society was not established for
charitable purposes.Inordertoabolish vivisection
it would be necessary to repeal the Cruelty of
Animals Act 1876 and replace it with a new
enactment prohibiting vivisection altogether.
2) Protection and benefit of animals
Trust for the welfare of animals generally are
charitable except if it is made for specified
animals.
The charitable status of gifts to animals was
originallylimited to the welfare of animals which
were useful to man.
Re Wedgwood (1915) 1 Ch 113
A testatrix byherwill gave her residue upon trust
to be applied for the protection and benefit of
animals.
Held : There was a charitable trust. To promote
public morality and prevent cruelty to animal
London University v Yarlow (1857) 1 DE & G 72
A trust to establish a hospital in which animal
useful to mankind will be treated and cured.
Re Grove Grady [1929] 1 Ch 557
A trust forthe benefitof birdsandotheranimal to
build a sanctuary for them ; this is to free them
from human molestation.