their families. Re Nottage [1895]- there had to be some other factor (over and above sport itself and such health benefits) in order for the sport to be charitable. o Trusts for adv. d) Not subject to Public Benefit. Certainty of objects rule is inapplicable (As_GWQgk:$BJ0w9BILXP8cVty^$2`0>%tu1^hNmLXd@9{g"i0(Da $!i#B42G#S0w}Y3y8 - m,&~qr4nj7K cZ8YitLPZ{\53@"'v,34oYWC?VnCK$gK%PsP'r' Re Youngs W. [1955] WLF 1269 gift to trustees of a club for assistance of its i) A religion which involves belief in more than one God, and which was a charity for the purpose of providing housing for the elderly. Barclays Bank Plc & Ors v Eustice & Ors (BAILII: Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments Ltd (BAILII: Barlow Clowes International v Vaughan (BAILII: Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co. Ltd [1980] Ch 515; [1980] 1 All ER 139. It must be for the relief of such persons 1- RELIEF OF POVERTY Irc, 4425 W Olive Ave, Glendale, AZ, Social Services - MapQuest under any of the preceding heads. person in question must have a need attributable to his condition which regard to their status in life. Re Scarisbrick, (supra) [1951] T gave half of her estate to the relations of her needy circumstances COA: Charitable as it was a trust to relieve Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams (BAILII: Adamson v B & L Cleaning Services Ltd (BAILII: American Cyanamid Co (No.1) v Ethicon Ltd (BAILII: Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd & Ors (BAILII: Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (BAILII: Bank of Credit & Commerce International & Anor v Akindele (BAILII: Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments Ltd & Anor (BAILII: Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133 (CA). purpose trust and exception no longer applies Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan & Ors (BAILII: Bonar Law Memorial Trust v IRC (1933) 49 TLR 220; (1933) 17 TC 508; KB, Buttle v Saunders [1950] 2 All ER 193; Ch D, Cannon v Hartley [1949] Ch 213; 1 All ER 50. trusts - British and Irish Legal Information Institute Was the gift charitable? Flower; Graeme Henderson). But I get little help from the supposed contrast for as I see it one and the same aggregate of persons may well be describable both as a section of the public and as a fluctuating body of private individuals. per Lord Cross i.e. Poor Relatives. RSPCA Political activity is acceptable if it is ancillary or incidental to the Yes - go to 2 Re Coulthurst (1951) Ch 661 As the Compton personal nexus rule stands, it looks to form rather than substance. Has the original charity amalgamated with another? or failing e. blindness, paralysis, addiction, etc.
