1. Public benefit
   1. Must confer tangible benefit
      1. Gilmour v Coats [1949]
      2. Could not be proved that prayers of nuns conferred tangible benefit
   2. On public at large or sufficiently large section
      1. Poverty head
         1. Gift to particular poor people is not charitable
            1. Re Scarisbrick [1951]
         2. Class of relatives might suffice
            1. Re Segelman [1996]
         3. Poor employees of a company
            1. Dingle v Turner [1972]
            2. No personal nexus test for poverty
      2. Religion
         1. Worship must be open to all
         2. Catford Synagogue
            1. Neville Estates v Madden [1962]
         3. Personal nexus not relevant
      3. Personal nexus test
         1. Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [1951]
            1. Group must not be numerically negligable
            2. Quality that distinguishes them must not be a personal nexus
            3. i.e. a personal quality such as relationship to individual
            4. or contract with common employer
            5. but students at particular university do not have personal nexus
         2. Applied to education
         3. But may be relevant for others
         4. Attempts to disguise
            1. Re Koettgens WT [1954]
            2. Binding trust for larger class
            3. With non-binding wish to prefer certain group
            4. IRC v Educational Grants Assoc [1967]
            5. Income tax relief
            6. If purpose is charitable
            7. and insofar as money is used for charitable purpose
            8. If most of money used for private group, will not be exempt
      4. Class within a class test
         1. Probably applies to all heads except poverty, education or religion
         2. IRC v Baddeley [1955]
            1. Residents of West Ham who were Methodists
         3. OK if nature of benefit means only advantageous to a smaller group
            1. eg children's hospital
         4. Not if arbitrary restriction imposed by settlor
2. Exclusively charitable
   1. AND/OR cases
      1. Benevolent, public or philanthropic purposes are not charitable
      2. 'Charitable and benevolent' purposes
         1. Not exclusively charitable
         2. Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance v Simpson [1941]
      3. 'Charitable or benevolent' purposes
         1. Exclusively charitable
         2. Used conjunctively
         3. Re Best [1904]
      4. 'Benevolent, charitable and religious purposes'
         1. Read disjunctively
         2. Not exclusively charitable
         3. Williams v Kershaw (1835)
   2. Exceptions
      1. Generally fail if not exclusively charitable
         1. McGovern v A-G [1982]
      2. OK if non-charitable element is incidental
         1. Royal College of Surgeons v National Provincial Bank [1952]
            1. Charitable although gave benefits to members
         2. General Nursing Council v St Marylebone BC [1959]
            1. Main purpose was regulation of nursing
      3. OK if non-charitable aim is severable
         1. Amount devoted to non-charitable cause is quantified
         2. Proportion charitable is valid, rest is void
3. Public appeals
   1. For charitable purposes which fail
   2. Surplus
      1. Cy-pres
   3. Initial failure?
      1. No cy-pres if specific
   4. What happens to donations
      1. Identifiable donations
         1. Ask for disclaimer
            1. Cy-pres possible
         2. If not, returned as resulting trust
      2. Unidentifiable donations
         1. Cy-pres
      3. Cheque and credit card
         1. Must attempt to identify
         2. Advertisements or enquiries
         3. If do not respond
            1. Cy-pres
         4. Have six months to claim
         5. Apply to courts
            1. If would be unreasonably costly to advertise
            2. ie donations small
            3. Can also apply to Charities Commission
            4. s16 CA 2006
   5. s17 CA 2006
      1. Can include statement on launch of appeal
      2. Used cy-pres unless 'relevant declaration' made
4. Cy-pres
   1. Initial failure
      1. Only applies if general charitable intent
         1. No cy-pres
            1. Does wording suggest gift is only to benefit specific project or body?
            2. Is intended project described in detail?
            3. Has intended body ever existed?
         2. Re Fingers WT [1972]
            1. Body had existed BUT
            2. Other gifts to charity
            3. Intended recipient was body coordinating other charitable bodies
            4. She believed she had no relatives
         3. Re Harwood [1936]
            1. Peace Society of Belfast did not exist but suggested general purpose
         4. Re Satterthwaites WT [1966]
            1. Large number of other charitable gifts
            2. Only if similar purpose
         5. Biscoe v Jackson (1887)
            1. Clear underlying broader intention
         6. Re Lysaght [1966]
            1. Gift to Royal College of Surgeons for non-Jewish or Catholic studentships
            2. RCS would not accept with discriminatory criteria
            3. Cy-pres scheme used to delete criteria
            4. Paramount intent was charitable scheme with RCS as trustee
      2. Gift is impossible from the outset
         1. Legatee ceased to exist by time of death
         2. Trust not possible at time of death
            1. Insufficient funds
            2. Suitable site not available
            3. Planning permission not possible
   2. Subsequent failure
      1. Automatically applies
      2. Was possible at time of disposition but becomes impossible later
         1. Legatee ceases to exist after death but before legacy paid
         2. Surplus when purpose achieved
5. Failure of charitable gifts
   1. Re Vernons WT [1972]
      1. Gifts to charitable institutions which have ceased to exist
      2. Is it continuing in another form?
   2. Unincorporated associations
      1. Will be construed as gifs for the purpose of the institution
      2. Has another association taken over the purpose
         1. If so, will not fail
   3. Charitable companies
      1. Legal entity
      2. If ceased to exist
         1. Gift will fail
            1. But see Faraker
      3. Unless gift expressed to be for a purpose
         1. Could follow the purpose if continuing
   4. Re Faraker [1912]
      1. If has amalgamated with other body
      2. And purpose continues
   5. If neither saves
      1. try cy-pres