References: Times 24-Sep-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2239
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Leggatt Lord Justice Morritt Lord Justice Mummery
Ratio: The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava religion in London.
Held: Charities Act jurisdiction is restricted to charities registered in the UK, with no control over charities established and administered abroad. The Mission was not a charity within the meaning of the 1993 Act.
Statutes: Charities Act 1993 33 96(1)
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Gaudiya Mission and Others v Kamalaksha Das Brahmachary ChD (Times 01-Apr-97)
There was a dispute as to the management and ownership of the London Temple of the plaintiff, a Vaishnava religious sect in India.
Held: The proceedings were charity proceedings within section 33(8), because they are proceedings brought under . . - Cited – Mayor of Lyon v East India Co ((1836) 1 Moore’s PC 175)
Lord Brougham said: ‘The objection, in the ordinary case, to administering a foreign charity under the superintendence of the Court, is this: those who are engaged in the actual execution of it, are beyond the Court’s control, and those who are . . - Cited – Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc HL ([1983] 2 AC 130, Bailii, [1982] UKHL TC – 56 – 183)
HL Income tax, Schedule E – Non-resident employer – Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea – Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments – Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 – Income and . . - Distinguished – Construction Industry Training Board v Attorney-General CA ([1973] Ch 173)
Buckley LJ considered the authorities for permitting a charity to act outside its original charitable aims: ‘It has long been recognised that, where a charity is established by an Act of Parliament, the court will not exercise its jurisdiction in . . - Cited – Provost of Edinburgh v Aubery ((1754) Amb 236)
The English court declined the jurisdiction for the distribution of a fund of andpound;3,500 bequeathed by the testator to the Provost of Edinburgh to be applied for the maintenance of poor labourers residing in Edinburgh and towns adjacent. He said . . - Cited – Re Marr’s Will Trusts ([1936] Ch 671)
. . - Cited – Attorney-General v Lepine ((1818) 2 Swanst 181)
The testator left part of his residuary estate for the benefit of a school for the poor in the parish of Dollar in Scotland.
Held: The English court declined jurisdiction. ‘I have always understood that, where a charity is to be administered . . - Cited – In Re Robinson ([1931] 2 Ch 122)
The claim concerned a gift which had been made to the German government for the benefit of disabled German soldiers.
Held: The English court had no jurisdiction: ‘if the trustee is abroad there is no power in the Court to direct a scheme to be . . - Cited – Emery v Hill ((1826) 1 Russ 112)
The Court was asked to make an order with respect to a bequest to the treasurer of a society established in Scotland for the propagation of Christian knowledge.
Held: The English court had no jurisdiction over a Scottish charity. . . - Cited – Forbes v Forbes ((1854) 18 Beav 552, (1854) Kay 341)
General Forbes died. It became necessary to decide what was his domicile at the date of death. He had been born in Scotland, but then served for 35 years in India, before retirng to live in London.
Held: The domicile in India was a domicile of . . - Cited – Attorney-General v Sturge ((1854) 19 Beav 597)
The testatrix had left funds to support a school in Genoa.
Held: The courts have no authority to make a scheme where the trustees would not be within the jurisdiction of the English courts. . . - Cited – Re Colonial Bishoprics Fund 1841 ([1935] Ch 148)
The court was asked to make a order with respect to the Fund, a trust established in England for the endowment of Bishoprics in the Colonies.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to make a cy-pres order. Since the trustees of the fund were in this . . - Cited – Attorney-General v City of London ((1790) Bro CC 171)
A trust had been established in England for the advancement of Christianity among ‘infidels in America’. Acting on information that after the American War of Independence, there were no longer any infidels within the areas designated, and that the . . - Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1956] AC 39, [1955] 3 All ER 97, 36 TC 126, Bailii, [1955] UKHL TC – 36 – 126)
The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution . . - Cited – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA ([1954] 1 Ch 672)
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to a company registered in New York for objects which were charitable according to the laws of England.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal against a finding that the . . - Doubted – Re Duncan CA ((1867) 2 LR Ch App 356)
The court was asked whether the consent of the Charity Commissioners was necessary to petition the Court to appoint a new trustee of a charity established in England to promote Christian education in Jamaica.
Held: In the 1853 Act, ‘Charity’ . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 24 March 2019
Ref: 142636
