Law of Trusts: Purpose Trusts (Workshop #7)
Case Study
3.1
Typically for a trust to be valid, there must be a person as the object (beneficiary) for it to be valid. This is known as the beneficiary principle, established in Morice v Bishop [1805]. However, there are exceptions, one of which is Trusts of Imperfect Obligation. Trusts of Imperfect Obligation allow for a valid private trust despite the beneficiary not being a person. These are most commonly formed for the care of a specified animal, e.g. Pettingall v Pettingall (1842). These trust are permitted due to concessions of ‘human weakness’ established in Re Astor’s Settlement Trust [1952] and the trustees willingness to execute the trust (Pettingall v Pettingall).
The legal issue is whether there is a valid charitable trust.
In the clause 3.1, the settlor has put aside ‘£17,000’ specifically for ‘the ongoing care of [their] horse Chester’. According to the rules established in Pettingall v Pettingall, this trust can still be valid despite there being no human beneficiary. The would be trustee ‘AUSTIN BUCKLEY‘ is ‘animal-loving’ suggesting a willingness to execute the trust required by Astor’s Settlement Trust.
In conclusion, it is very likely that there is a valid Trust of Imperfect Obligation here, however, to ensure that it is a such; the would-be trustee Austin Buckley should state his willingness to execute the trust.
3.2
According to the Charities Act 2011 s 1(1) a public trust (charity) is an institution established for charitable purpose only. To have a valid public trust, 3 conditions must be fulfilled: the trust must be made for a charitable purpose, be for public benefit and be exclusively charitable. Charitable purpose are outline in the Charites Act 2011 s 3(a)-(m). The first 3 subsections are known as the ‘Pemsel Categories’: a) the prevention or relief of poverty, b) the advancement of education and c) the advancement of religion.