Purpose Trusts
In the event of the trustee’s non-performance of the purpose specified, there will arise a RT
in favour of the residuary legatees or next-of-kin of the property in question
1. Terminology:
a. Purpose trusts/Non-charitable purpose trusts/Trust of imperfect obligation =
a trust that is not for the benefit of a human beneficiary and is not a
charitable trust
b. Abstract purpose trusts
2. The Human Beneficiary Principle:
a. The principle that, for the trust to be valid, there must be a human
beneficiary capable of enforcing the trust (Law, Dictionary)
b. Otherwise, the trust is void
c. “There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree specific
performance” Morice v Bishop of Durham, Sir William Grant MR
d. “for a trust to be valid it must be for the benefit of individuals” Bowman v
Secular Society, Lord Parker
e. Hayton: “Just as a car needs an engine, so a trust needs a beneficiary”
3. Objections to Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts:
a. Enforceability (The Beneficiary Principle)
i. Proceedings of enforcement require a person, intended by S, to have
locus standi
ii. Trust for ‘the maintenance of good relations between nations [and]
the preservation of the independence of the newspapers’ Re Astor’s
Settlement Trust
iii. “trustee would not be expected to be subject to an equitable
obligation unless there was somebody who could enforce a
correlative equitable right, and the nature and extent of that
obligation would be worked out in proceedings for enforcement” Re
Astor’s Settlement Trusts, Roxburgh J
iv. Trust for ‘the purpose of creating some useful memorial to myself’ Re
Endacott
v. “must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries” Re Endacott,
Lord Evershed MR
vi. Thus, rules out a purpose/object trust as:
1. An “object cannot complain to the court, which, therefore,
cannot control the trust” Re Shaw, Harman J
2. A “purpose or object cannot sue” Leahy v A-G for New South
Wales, Viscount Simonds
b. Uncertainty
i. “There can be no trust, over the exercise of which this Court will not
assume a control; for an uncontrollable power of disposition would be
ownership, and not trust… There must be somebody, in whose favour
the Court can decree performance” Morice v Bishop v Durham, Sir
William Grant MR
ii. “it is not possible to contemplate with equanimity the creation of
large funds devoted to non-charitable purposes which no court and
no department of state can control” Re Astor’s Settlement, Roxburgh J
1
, c. Perpetuity
i. Morris and Leach: all the trusts for non-charitable purposes agree on
one point – the trust is void if it lasts longer than the perpetuity
period (The Rules Against Perpetuities)
ii. The trust cannot exist for an excessive duration as it is undesirable for
property to be taken out of the market for a long time
iii. Perpetuity period = the maximum duration for a trust to exist
1. Generally held as 21 years Hayton
iv. The care of animals was valid for 21 years Re Haines
1. The life expectancy of a cat is approximately 16 years, as such,
less that the perpetuity period Re Haines
2. How about, e.g. tortoises?
v. Mussett v Bingle:
1. £300 for erection of a monument held valid
2. £200 for the maintenance not held valid as this was a
perpetuity
vi. Maintain a monument for ‘as long as legally possible’, thus, valid for
21 years after the testator’s death Re Hooper
d. Capriciousness
i. Court wants to prevent S from creating such extraordinarily useless
trusts
ii. Brown v Burdett:
1. ‘to cause the windows and doors in each and every room… to
be well and effectually bricked up from the … with every
article of whatever kind that may then be therein… and so
bricked up, to continue for the term of 20 years next after my
decease’
2. “I think I must “unseal” this useless, undisposed of property”
Sir James Bacon V-C
4. Interpretative Devices:
a. These are situations where there have been expansions of the definition of
HBP to hold trusts valid
b. Absolute gifts of property with a motive/Gifts with a super added purpose
i. Trust for planting trees on a family estate regarded as the owners of
the family estate being the Bs Re Bowes
1. “the fund is devoted to improving the estate for the benefit of
the persons who are… entitled to it…” North J
2. The purpose was merely the motive for making the gift
ii. Trust for the ‘training of my daughter up to university age’ where B
was the testator’s daughter Re Osoba
1. “the reference to the purpose [was] merely a statement of the
testator’s motive in making the gift. Any other interpretation
of the gift would frustrate the testator’s expressed intention
that the whole subject matter shall be applied for the benefit
of the beneficiary” Buckley LJ
c. Trusts with ‘indirect beneficiaries’
2
In the event of the trustee’s non-performance of the purpose specified, there will arise a RT
in favour of the residuary legatees or next-of-kin of the property in question
1. Terminology:
a. Purpose trusts/Non-charitable purpose trusts/Trust of imperfect obligation =
a trust that is not for the benefit of a human beneficiary and is not a
charitable trust
b. Abstract purpose trusts
2. The Human Beneficiary Principle:
a. The principle that, for the trust to be valid, there must be a human
beneficiary capable of enforcing the trust (Law, Dictionary)
b. Otherwise, the trust is void
c. “There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree specific
performance” Morice v Bishop of Durham, Sir William Grant MR
d. “for a trust to be valid it must be for the benefit of individuals” Bowman v
Secular Society, Lord Parker
e. Hayton: “Just as a car needs an engine, so a trust needs a beneficiary”
3. Objections to Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts:
a. Enforceability (The Beneficiary Principle)
i. Proceedings of enforcement require a person, intended by S, to have
locus standi
ii. Trust for ‘the maintenance of good relations between nations [and]
the preservation of the independence of the newspapers’ Re Astor’s
Settlement Trust
iii. “trustee would not be expected to be subject to an equitable
obligation unless there was somebody who could enforce a
correlative equitable right, and the nature and extent of that
obligation would be worked out in proceedings for enforcement” Re
Astor’s Settlement Trusts, Roxburgh J
iv. Trust for ‘the purpose of creating some useful memorial to myself’ Re
Endacott
v. “must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries” Re Endacott,
Lord Evershed MR
vi. Thus, rules out a purpose/object trust as:
1. An “object cannot complain to the court, which, therefore,
cannot control the trust” Re Shaw, Harman J
2. A “purpose or object cannot sue” Leahy v A-G for New South
Wales, Viscount Simonds
b. Uncertainty
i. “There can be no trust, over the exercise of which this Court will not
assume a control; for an uncontrollable power of disposition would be
ownership, and not trust… There must be somebody, in whose favour
the Court can decree performance” Morice v Bishop v Durham, Sir
William Grant MR
ii. “it is not possible to contemplate with equanimity the creation of
large funds devoted to non-charitable purposes which no court and
no department of state can control” Re Astor’s Settlement, Roxburgh J
1
, c. Perpetuity
i. Morris and Leach: all the trusts for non-charitable purposes agree on
one point – the trust is void if it lasts longer than the perpetuity
period (The Rules Against Perpetuities)
ii. The trust cannot exist for an excessive duration as it is undesirable for
property to be taken out of the market for a long time
iii. Perpetuity period = the maximum duration for a trust to exist
1. Generally held as 21 years Hayton
iv. The care of animals was valid for 21 years Re Haines
1. The life expectancy of a cat is approximately 16 years, as such,
less that the perpetuity period Re Haines
2. How about, e.g. tortoises?
v. Mussett v Bingle:
1. £300 for erection of a monument held valid
2. £200 for the maintenance not held valid as this was a
perpetuity
vi. Maintain a monument for ‘as long as legally possible’, thus, valid for
21 years after the testator’s death Re Hooper
d. Capriciousness
i. Court wants to prevent S from creating such extraordinarily useless
trusts
ii. Brown v Burdett:
1. ‘to cause the windows and doors in each and every room… to
be well and effectually bricked up from the … with every
article of whatever kind that may then be therein… and so
bricked up, to continue for the term of 20 years next after my
decease’
2. “I think I must “unseal” this useless, undisposed of property”
Sir James Bacon V-C
4. Interpretative Devices:
a. These are situations where there have been expansions of the definition of
HBP to hold trusts valid
b. Absolute gifts of property with a motive/Gifts with a super added purpose
i. Trust for planting trees on a family estate regarded as the owners of
the family estate being the Bs Re Bowes
1. “the fund is devoted to improving the estate for the benefit of
the persons who are… entitled to it…” North J
2. The purpose was merely the motive for making the gift
ii. Trust for the ‘training of my daughter up to university age’ where B
was the testator’s daughter Re Osoba
1. “the reference to the purpose [was] merely a statement of the
testator’s motive in making the gift. Any other interpretation
of the gift would frustrate the testator’s expressed intention
that the whole subject matter shall be applied for the benefit
of the beneficiary” Buckley LJ
c. Trusts with ‘indirect beneficiaries’
2
