The general rule is that trusts for non-charitable purposes are void, principally because of the beneficiary principle: a trust must have ascertainable human beneficiaries able to enforce the trustee’s obligations.

The Core Objections

  • The beneficiary principle: per Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804), every trust needs “somebody in whose favour the Court can decree performance”; a purpose has no enforcer (George Bernard Shaw’s 40-letter-alphabet trust failed).
  • Lack of certainty: vague purposes give no objective criteria for control (Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts, 1952).
  • The rule against inalienability: capital must not be tied up beyond 21 years, so the trust must be limited to 21 years or let trustees spend the capital at any time.
  • Capriciousness: an irrational, useless purpose fails (blocking up a house in Brown v Burdett, 1882).

Trusts of Imperfect Obligation

A small, strictly limited set of valid-but-unenforceable “concessions to human weakness”: the maintenance of specific animals (Re Dean; Pettingall v Pettingall) and of graves and monuments (Re Hooper, valid for the 21-year period). A trust exceeding 21 years without allowing the capital to be spent fails for inalienability.

The Denley Principle

Re Denley’s Trust Deed (1968): a purpose trust may be valid where it gives a tangible benefit to an identifiable group (a sports ground for employees), as such beneficiaries fall “outside the mischief” of the beneficiary principle. A Denley-type trust requires a non-abstract purpose, certain beneficiaries (the “given postulant” test), a workable class, and compliance with the 21-year rule (spending on equipment is fine; maintaining a clubhouse indefinitely is void).

Non-Charitable Unincorporated Associations

Associations are not legal persons, so gifts to them risk being void. Per Neville Estates v Madden (1962), three constructions are used:

  • Outright gift to current members as joint tenants (rarely intended).
  • The contractual theory (Re Recher): an accretion to the association’s funds, held per the constitution — valid only if members can dissolve and divide assets at any time.
  • Purpose trust for members (Re Lipinski’s Will Trusts, 1976): a gift for a purpose upheld as an accretion or a valid Denley trust.

Where members lack autonomy (a branch controlled by a national body in Re Grant’s Will Trust, 1979), the gift fails for inalienability.

Comparison with Charitable Trusts

Charitable trusts are exempt from the beneficiary principle (enforced by the Attorney General), can last in perpetuity, are not void for vague purposes, and benefit from cy-près. Unless a non-charitable purpose trust falls into an anomalous category, satisfies Denley, or is a contractual gift to members, it is void for offending the beneficiary principle or the 21-year rule.