R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

8. Charitable trusts

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Charitable trusts are not subject to the objections against private purpose trusts and enjoy certain privileges. Charities are not public institutions, but are nevertheless subject to judicial control, to the constitutional protection of the Crown as parens patriae (acting through the Attorney-General) and to the supervision of the Charity Commission. Moreover, they are not subject to the beneficiary principle and to the rule against inalienability of capital. This chapter deals with charitable trusts and discusses the distinction between legal and ‘everyday’ notions of charity. It also examines a charitable purpose, the advantages and disadvantages of charitable status, limits on the recognition of charitable trusts, what happens when a charitable purpose fails, whether the purpose of a charitable status is sufficiently beneficial to the public and the administration of charitable trusts. The chapter furthermore considers trust law and tax law privileges; the roles of charities, such as the prevention or relief of poverty and the advancement of education and religion; the public benefit requirement in educational trusts; recreational charities; the exclusivity requirement; the doctrine of cy près; and the disposal of surplus donations.

TRUCE MISSIONS, NON-VIOLENT CAMPAIGNS AND PEACEFUL RESOLUTIONS OF CONFLICTS: LESSONS FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF PEACE DIRECT CHARITY ORGANISATION IN NORTHERN NIGERIA

Among the major threats halting the wheel of developments in northern Nigeria is the rising spate of insecurity and conflicts that have now assumed various formidable dimensions in all ramifications. The waves of violence and armed conflicts have continued to take toll on the region over the last three decades, claimed over twenty-eight thousand (28,000) lives and got three million (3 million) people displaced. Despite the disheartening statistics, Peace Direct (PD), a charitable organization known for its non-violent and peace building initiatives, and having supported the civil societies in conflict zones for over a decade across the globe, has now come out optimistic that a non-violent and peaceful northern Nigeria is possible. The study examines the various instances and factors giving birth to insecurity and violence in northern Nigeria; and also the activities of Peace Direct Charity Commission (PDCC) towards ensuring truce brokerage missions, non-violent campaigns and peaceful resolutions of conflicts in the region. The study adopts a democratic peace theory to explain the need for war’s absence in peaceful settings as the paper relies on both primary and secondary sources of data with significant reliability index. The study, however, reveals the various factors aiding insecurity and violence in the region to be; a disconnect between the people and government, abject poverty, increased rate of unemployment, weak and poorly funded military establishments, interagency rivalry, low-level of intelligence gathering on the part of security agencies in Nigeria, among others. Therefore, making the region to be non-violent and peaceful; the Nigerian security agencies, social system, public institutions truce brokerage missions, and peace building efforts or initiatives must be adequately strengthened.

Undue pressure or moral obligation: religious gifting and undue influence

Purpose This paper aims to stimulate discussion on how best to protect individuals from undue influence when gifting to religious institutions in England and Wales. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on the law relating to undue influence in England and Wales and draws from the literature regarding gifting to religious institutions and accountability of such institutions. Findings This paper identifies that more needs to be done to protect individuals, so as to ensure they are gifting to religious institutions using their own free will. It highlights that although the law attempts to define undue influence, there is little guidance on where the line between persuasion and coercion lies. The paper recognises that religious institutions need to do more to adopt safeguarding policies and that the Charity Commission ought to better support such policies by creating a single point of reference. Practical implications Steps need to be taken to prepare a cohesive set of principles that religious institutions of all denominations can follow to ensure they protect themselves from being accused of undue influence, as well as safeguarding individuals from abuse. Originality/value There are limited studies that consider the dichotomy between religious gifting and undue influence. This paper adds to the existing discussion and considers ways in which individuals can be protected. The author is not aware of such considerations being directly contemplated as resolutions to this issue.

Regulation of universities as charities: one step forward, two steps back

Most universities (bar profit-making institutions) are charities as a matter of law but, historically, have been exempt from charity law regulation. This paper considers the statutory reforms of 2006, which sought to level the regulatory playing field by appointing ‘Principal Regulators’ of such ‘exempt charities’ to promote compliance with charity law. Focusing on the university sector – where some universities are now registered charities (and regulated by the Charity Commission) whilst others remain exempt – it will note how the reforms have resulted in the application of significantly different degrees of scrutiny and accountability, both between individual universities and between universities and other charities. In part, this is due to the statutory framework itself but, significantly, is also attributable to the radically different approach taken by the Office for Students, which replaced HEFCE as Principal Regulator in 2018. Possible improvements in regulatory practice and statutory reform are offered.

R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, Media Engagement and Public Benefit

This article examines the recent engagement with media by the closed Christian sect, the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (pbcc). Historically the pbcc have been reluctant to engage with mainstream media, preferring instead to keep their own council. However, the rejection by the Charity Commission for England and Wales of an application by a pbcc trust for charitable status proved to be a catalyst for significant and sustained media engagement. The concept of mediatization is utilised as a meta-process to frame the way the pbcc engaged with media in order to demonstrate how they provide ‘public benefit’ to the wider community, which was crucial to the successful gaining of charitable status.

Charitable purposes, demonstrable benefit and the role of the Charity Commission: the fourth Pemsel head recast

The Charities Act 2011 requires that charitable purposes must fit within one or more of the statutory descriptions of ‘charity’ and, demonstrably, be in the public benefit. From the perspective of the now dismantled fourth Pemsel head of charity, this article examines the elusive concept of a charitable purpose and the misconceived statutory public benefit requirement. The guidance and decision-making roles of the Charity Commission are appraised and problems in applying the current law exposed. As few charity cases reach the courts or Upper Tribunal, this work analyses the limited, but important, registration appeals that have reached the First-tier Tribunal. It will explore the emerging trends in charity appeals, the divergent approaches adopted by the Commission and the Tribunal and the lamentable degree of unpredictability facing prospective charity trustees. It concludes that an absence of clear-thinking pervades this vital aspect of charity law and invites reworking and revision.

Communities as ‘renewable energy’ for healthcare services? a multimethods study into the form, scale and role of voluntary support for community hospitals in England

ObjectiveTo examine the forms, scale and role of community and voluntary support for community hospitals in England.DesignA multimethods study. Quantitative analysis of Charity Commission data on levels of volunteering and voluntary income for charities supporting community hospitals. Nine qualitative case studies of community hospitals and their surrounding communities, including interviews and focus groups.SettingCommunity hospitals in England and their surrounding communities.ParticipantsCharity Commission data for 245 community hospital Leagues of Friends. Interviews with staff (89), patients (60), carers (28), volunteers (35), community representatives (20), managers and commissioners (9). Focus groups with multidisciplinary teams (8 groups across nine sites, involving 43 respondents), volunteers (6 groups, 33 respondents) and community stakeholders (8 groups, 54 respondents).ResultsCommunities support community hospitals through: human resources (average=24 volunteers a year per hospital); financial resources (median voluntary income = £15 632); practical resources through services and activities provided by voluntary and community groups; and intellectual resources (eg, consultation and coproduction). Communities provide valuable supplementary resources to the National Health Service, enhancing community hospital services, patient experience, staff morale and volunteer well-being. Such resources, however, vary in level and form from hospital to hospital and over time: voluntary income is on the decline, as is membership of League of Friends, and it can be hard to recruit regular, active volunteers.ConclusionsCommunities can be a significant resource for healthcare services, in ways which can enhance patient experience and service quality. Harnessing that resource, however, is not straight forward and there is a perception that it might be becoming more difficult questioning the extent to which it can be considered sustainable or ‘renewable’.

R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.