Dingle v Turner and Ors
[1972] 1 All ER 878(Judgment by: Lord Macdermott)
Between: Dingle
And: Turner and Ors
Judges:
Viscount Dilhorne
Lord MacdermottLord Hodson
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Cross of Chelsea
Subject References:
CHARITY
Relief of poverty
Poor employees
Trust to provide pensions to poor employees of a company
Whether valid charitable trust
Charity
Public benefit
Requirement of public benefit
Section of the public
Determination whether potential beneficiaries constitute a section of the public
Relevance
Case References:
A-G v Northumberland (Duke) - (1877) 7 Ch D 745; 47 LJCh 569; varied (1878) 38 LT 245; 8 Digest (Repl) 410, 1020
A-G v Price - (1810) 17 Ves 371; [1803-13] All ER Rep 467; 34 ER 143; 8 Digest (Repl) 316, 19
Buck, Re, Bruty v Mackey - [1896] 2 Ch 727; [1895-99] All ER Rep 366; 65 LJCh 881; 75 LT 312; 60 JP 775; 8 Digest (Repl) 356, 348
Compton, Re, Powell v Compton - [1945] 1 All ER 198; [1945] Ch 123; 114 LJCh 99; 172 LT 158; 8 Digest (Repl) 330, 123
Cox (decd), Re, Baker v National Trust Co Ltd, Public Trustee for Ontario (Province) v National Trust Co Ltd - [1955] 2 All ER 550; [1955] AC 627; [1955] 3 WLR 42; affg [1951] OR 205; Digest (Cont Vol A) 91, 3a
Davies v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) - [1959] 2 All ER 128; [1959] AC 439; [1959] 2 WLR 673; Digest (Cont Vol A) 88, 6a
Drummond, Re, Ashworth v Drummond - [1914] 2 Ch 90; [1914-15] All ER Rep 223; 83 LJCh 817; 111 LT 156; 8 Digest (Repl) 320, 52
Gibson v South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd - [1949] 2 All ER 985; [1950] Ch 177; 8 Digest (Repl) 320, 51
Gosling, Re, Gosling v Smith - (1900) 48 WR 300; 16 TLR 152; 8 Digest (Repl) 320, 49
Hobourn Aero Components Ltd's Air Raid Distress Fund, Re, Ryan v Forrest - [1946] 1 All ER 501; [1946] Ch 194; 115 LJCh 158; 174 LT 428; 8 Digest (Repl) 321, 56
Income Tax Special Purposes Comrs v Pemsel - [1891] AC 531; [1891-94] All ER Rep 28; 61 LJQB 265; 65 LT 621; 55 JP 805; 3 Tax Cas 53; 8 Digest (Repl) 312
Inland Revenue Comrs v Educational Grants Association Ltd - [1967] 2 All ER 893; [1967] Ch 993; [1967] 3 WLR 41; 44 Tax Cas 111; Digest (Cont Vol C) 529, 1400a
Laidlaw, Re, Sir Robert Laidlaw's Will Trusts - (11 January 1935) unreported
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd - [1951] 1 All ER 31; [1951] AC 297; 8 Digest (Repl) 321, 55
Pease v Pattinson - (1886) 32 Ch D 154; [1886-90] All ER Rep 507; 55 LJCh 617; 54 LT 209; 8 Digest (Repl) 355, 356
Scarisbrick, Re, Cockshott v Public Trustee - [1951] 1 All ER 822; [1951] Ch 622; rvsg [1950] 1 All ER 143; [1950] Ch 226; 8 Digest (Repl) 316, 18
Spiller v Maude - (1881) 32 Ch D 158n; 8 Digest (Repl) 463, 1641
Young's Will Trusts, Re, Westminster Bank Ltd v Sterling - [1955] 3 All ER 689; [1955] 1 WLR 1269; Digest (Cont Vol A) 89, 31a
Judgment date: 16 February 1972
Judgment by:
Lord Macdermott
My Lords, the conclusion I have reached on the facts of this case is that the gift in question constitutes a public trust for the relief of poverty which is charitable in law. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
I do not find it necessary to state my reasons for this conclusion in detail. In the first place, the views which I have expressed at some length in relation to an educational trust in Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd seem to me to apply to this appeal and to mean that it fails. It would, of course, be otherwise if the case just cited purported to rule the point now in issue. But that is not so, for it clearly left that point undecided and open for further consideration. And, secondly, I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Cross of Chelsea, and find myself in agreement with his conclusion for the reasons he has given. In particular, I welcome his commentary on the difficulties of the phrase 'a section of the public'. But I would prefer not to extend my concurrence to what my noble and learned friend goes on to say respecting the fiscal privileges of a legal charity. This subject may be material on the question whether what is alleged to be a charity is sufficiently altruistic in nature to qualify as such, but beyond that, and without wishing to express any final view on the matter, I doubt if these consequential privileges have much relevance to the primary question whether a given trust or purpose should be held charitable in law.
I agree with the order as to costs proposed by my noble and learned friend.