Lecture notes
Lecture 6
- Module
- Equity And Trust
- Institution
- City University (City)
Law lecture class notes
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
6. HOW UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS TAKE AND HOW THEY ARE DISSOLVED(Week 6)
Gifts to or for the benefit of unincorporated association:
Problems will only arise if the association is not charitable. Unincorporated associations,
unlike a company either limited by shares or by guarantee do not have separate
personality.
How the unincorporated association takes.
o Neville Estates v Madden [1962] Ch.832: Cross J suggested that a gift to an
unincorporated association might have one of three effects. The gift may
be a simple gift to members of the association, at the date of the gift, as
joint tenants.
Gift (subject to contractual rules).
Leahy v Attorney – General for New South Wales [1959] AC 457
Facts: a testamentary gift made by the widow of a wealthy man. Left residuary
estate: “(my homestead and furniture)” upon trust for such orders of nuns of the
catholic church or the Christian Brothers as my executors and trustees shall select”.
Decision: this was a purpose trust in disguise. This was not a charity because not all
religious orders are charitable. It was so wide that some orders may be
contemplative orders, rather than pursing extraneous good works. So taking a broad
view of construction it was void- could further non-charitable purposes.
Cf. now the “contract-holding theory” of gifts to unincorperated associations.
Re Grant’s Will Trusts [1980] 1 WLR 360.
The deceased left property to the Labour party committee.
Held: a trust created by making gift to the members on an unincorporated association as at
the date of the gift can be wound up only if under the rules, the members could, at any
time, resolve to terminate the trust and distribute the fund to themselves.
Subject to contractual rights and duties of the members
o Re Recher’s W.T. [1972] Ch.526
Trust analysis
o Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts [1976] Ch 235.
Failure of the unincorporated association
Surplus pension funds: Air Jamacia v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399.
Resulting Trust analysis
Re Gilligham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300.
Cunnack v Edwards [1896] 2 Ch 679.
Re West Sussex Constabulary’s Widows Children and Benevolent Fund [1971] Ch 1.
Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373. Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller soumaiadjellak. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £9.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
59325 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now