Non-charitable purpose trusts

A non-charitable purpose trust is

A trust in which the object is a non-charitable purpose rather than a person or people

NCPTs are generally void because

They violate the beneficiary principle. To be upheld, a NCPT must have a clear human being or beings who will benefit from the purpose — Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804]

But where the purpose is one of the following, a NCPT may be upheld

1. The maintenance of specific animals

2. The maintenance of graves, tombs and monuments

3. The saying of private masses
   — Re Endacott [1959]

4. Denley-style purpose
   — Re Denley [1968]

The maintenance of specific animals

Pettingall v Pettingall [1842]

The maintenance of graves, tombs and monuments

Pirbright v Salwey [1896]

The saying of private masses

Bourne v Keane [1919]

Denley-style purpose

Where there is a very clear person or people who will directly benefit from the purpose, the trust may be upheld — Re Denley [1968]

An NCPT cannot be perpetual; they can last at most for a life or lives in being plus 21 years, or 21 years if there is no relevant life in being

Re Khoo Cheng Teow [1932]

An unincorporated association is

An organisation made up of two or more people who are bound together by a contract for a purpose other than to make profit

Conveying property to an UA typically cannot be done by a Denley-style NCPT because

NCPTs cannot be perpetual; an UA may continue indefinitely and the members of an UA may change over time

Conveying property to an UA is more appropriately done by

1. A gift to present members as individuals

2. A gift to present members subject to contract

A gift to present members as individuals means

The members hold the interest in the property as joint tenants, so at any point a member may sever. A gift can only be construed as falling in this category if “neither the gift does not impose on the members the duties and powers of a trustee — Bowman v Secular Society [1917]

A gift to present members subject to contract means

The property is invested into the UA. But the members typically can collectively dissolve the UA and consequently distribute the surplus amongst themselves — Re Recher [1972]. If there is a term against dissolution, the surplus is to be divided between the members on a per capita basis — Re Horley Town FC [2006]