Purpose trusts (Trusts for imperfect obligation)

The courts consider a private purpose trust to be void, which is a significant

principle related to this concept. According to the case of Morrice v Bishop of
Durham, Sir William Grant said that the establishment of a trust necessitates
the presence of certainty of object and a person to whom the court can grant
the remedy of specific performance. In the legal matter of Bowman v Secular
Security, Lord Parker articulated that for a trust to be deemed legitimate, it
must confer a benefit upon the individual. In cases where the court lacks
authority to oversee the administration of a trust, it will refrain from creating
such a trust due to its inability to regulate or manage said trust. In instances
where a non-charitable purpose trust fails, it is typical for a resulting trust to
emerge, as evidenced in the case of Re Astor's Settlement Trust. This resulting
trust is advantageous to the settlor.
Notwithstanding the principle established in the Astor's settlement case,
certain private purpose trusts may be deemed legally valid by the courts. There
exist three exceptions under which trust for a non-charitable purpose shall be
deemed valid. The initial exemption pertains to the trust established for the
purpose of caring for animals. Donations intended for the upkeep of a
particular entity are classified as charitable contributions, while trusts
established for the care of specific animals are categorised as private purpose
trusts and are legally recognised. The Pettingall v Pettingall case pertained to a
will created by the executor, wherein the executor had bestowed a gift for the
betterment of the testator's black mare. The court ruled that the gift was
deemed legitimate as it aligned with the testator's intentions, which were being
executed by the appointed executor. The court in the case of Re Thompson
expanded the aforementioned principle by validating a trust that aimed to
advance the cause of fox hunting.
The second instance in which a non-charitable purpose trust may be deemed
legally valid pertains to monument cases. In the realm of jurisprudence, it is a
general principle that a trust established for the purpose of erecting a
monument or memorial for another individual is deemed invalid by the courts.
However, it is noteworthy that an exception to this rule exists, whereby the
trust may be considered valid if the trustee has expressed a clear intention to
fulfil the obligations of the trust. The legal precedent relevant to this matter is
exemplified in the Mussett v Bingle case. A donation that is designated for the
upkeep of a burial site may be deemed legally acceptable; nonetheless, the
benefaction must be confined within the duration of perpetuity by the
benefactor. The case of Mussett illustrates the invalidity of a gift that was not
confined within the limits of perpetuity.
The final exception is exemplified in the legal case of Bourne v Keane, wherein
the court determined that a donation intended for the purpose of conducting
masses was deemed legally permissible. The aforementioned concept is
commonly referred to as the Bourne Principle, which is applicable solely to
private masses, as public masses are regarded as charitable in nature.
The maximum duration of perpetuity for the three aforementioned exceptions
is determined by the life in being plus twenty-one years. Nevertheless, the
likelihood of a trust exceeding the perpetuity period is relatively low. It is
noteworthy that the aforementioned exceptions owe their existence solely to
human frailty, and thus the likelihood of their proliferation in the future is
minimal, as stated by Lord Harman.
Provided that the trusts mentioned above meet the necessary criteria for a
legitimate charitable organization, they may be deemed valid trusts for public
purposes. The case of Re Rose resulted in the successful establishment of a
charitable trust that pertained to the welfare of felines. In the case of Re
Douglas, it was determined that a donation intended for a residence for stray
canines qualified as a charitable contribution. The charitable nature of the
trust responsible for the provision of maintenance was a related aspect in the
case of Earl Mountbatten.
The Denley approach is employed by courts to ascertain whether a trust or gift
is intended to confer benefits upon individuals who possess the capacity to
enforce the trust, or whether the trust or gift is designed solely to advance a
void purpose. The Re Denley trust deed entailed the provision of a parcel of
land to a trustee, intended for use as a sports ground, with the primary
beneficiaries being the employees of a particular company. The trustee has his
own discretion to grant the secondary benefit to those individuals which meet
the eligibility criteria. Goff J said that if trust is established for the benefit of
any individual which could be directly or indirectly then it appears to be
generally exempt from the beneficiary principle.
The reason why private purpose trusts fail can be due to three main and
primary factors specifically if there is no uncertainty and beneficiary is also
absent and another reason is the perpetuity rule. The enforceability of a trust
by a court depends on the fact whether three certainties are present or not. If
even any one of these certainties are uncertain then it is not possible to enforce
a trust. The principle which is in question can be supported by trusts but over
here the trust failed as there was no certainty or any identifiable beneficiaries.
If the beneficiary is not identified a then this could be a second reason which
would contribute to the failure of a private purpose trusts. The Astor's case
serves as an illustrative example in this regard. The primary reason for the
failure of the trust was the absence of a beneficiary. The role of a beneficiary is
of significant importance as they serve as a means of enforcing the trust in the
event that the trustee fails to fulfil their obligations. In such cases, the
beneficiary may seek legal recourse to ensure that the trust is executed as
intended. The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing charitable purpose
trusts on behalf of the Crown. However, private purpose trusts cannot be
enforced due to the absence of a beneficiary to enforce the trust. In the event of
a private purpose trust's failure, the property in question will be retained on a
resulting trust for the settlor. The case of Morrice versus the Bishop of
Durham.
The final exception to the perpetuity rule pertains to situations where there is a
dearth of beneficiaries. The aforementioned regulation mandates that any
forthcoming property must be endowed within a time frame of 125 years.
Notwithstanding the establishment of trust for a specific purpose, detractors
contend that the existence of an individual with a rightful claim to the property
remains, in the event that the intended purpose of the trust is not fulfilled. The
aforementioned individual possesses the capacity to assert in a legal setting
that the property in question was misused. The individual's standing to bring
such a claim before the court is contingent upon the presence of adequate
interest. The implementation of statutory schemes may potentially facilitate the
execution of purpose trusts. Previously, similar initiatives have been
implemented, such as the enactment of the Cayman Island Special Trusts Law
in 1997. This law granted the individual who enforced the trust with the same
proprietary remedies, even in the absence of any beneficial interest in the
property.
The assertion that equitable ownership must always have a beneficiary with an
equitable interest and should not remain unclaimed has been challenged based
on the observation that there exist several scenarios where property lacks an
owner in equity. The trust established for Sandra's future grandchildren will
not have any beneficiaries with equitable ownership until the birth of one of
her grandchildren. The aforementioned reasoning, which pertains to
established exceptional classifications and posits that failure to confine them
within the perpetuity period will result in the trust's demise, can be applied to
counter the assertion regarding the perpetuity criterion.
In conclude it is possible to argue that, at the present time, English law does
not permit the entrance of purpose trusts, with the exception of charity trusts
this, however is only the case in extremely specific and rare situations.

“IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT QUESTIONS COULD COME FROM

A VARIETY OF ANGLES IN THE EXAM SO THESE ESSAYS DO NOT
GURRANTEE YOUR MARKS. IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS IN THE PAPER AND RESPOND TO NEW ANGLES,
PLEASE STUDY THE ENTIRE CHAPTER AND UNDERTAKE
PREPARATORY RESEARCH.”