Dingle v Turner and Ors

[1972] 1 All ER 878

---

Between: Dingle
And: Turner and Ors

Court:

Judges: Viscount Dilhorne
Lord Macdermott
Lord 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

Hearing date: 17-19, 22-23 November 1971
Judgment date: 16 February 1972

---

The testator died on 10 January 1950. By cl 8(e) of his will he directed his trustees to invest a specified sum on trust 'to apply the income thereof in paying pensions to poor employees of [D Ltd] ... ' At the testator's death D Ltd employed over 600 persons and there was a substantial number of ex-employees. Since then the business had expanded and D Ltd had 705 full-time and 189 part-time employees and was paying pensions to 89 ex-employees. In proceedings to determine whether the trust declared by cl 8(e) was valid it was contended by those interested on intestacy if the trust failed, that a trust ought not to be regarded as charitable if the benefits were confined to the employees of a given individual or company, the validity of trusts for 'poor relations' constituting an anomalous exception to the general rule.

Held

The trust constituted a valid charitable trust. It was a natural development of the 'poor relations' decisions to hold as charitable trusts for 'poor employees' of an individual or company or 'poor members' of a club or society; to draw a distinction between different kinds of 'poverty' trusts would be illogical. In the field of trusts for relief of poverty the dividing line between a charitable and a private trust depended on whether, as a matter of construction, the gift was for the relief of poverty amongst a particular description of poor people or was merely a gift to particular poor persons, the relief of poverty amongst them being the motive of the gift (see p 880 h and j, p 881 b d and e, p 883 e and p 888 f to h, post).

Re Gosling (1900) 48 WR 300, Gibson v South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd [1949] 2 All ER 985, and Re Scarisbrick [1951] 1 All ER 822 applied.

Re Compton [1945] 1 All ER 198, Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 31 and Davies v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) [1959] 2 All ER 128 distinguished.

Per Lord MacDermott, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea. In determining for the purposes of the law of charity whether a trust other than for the relief of poverty is for the public benefit, the question whether or not the potential beneficiaries of the trust can fairly be said to constitute a section of the public is a question of degree and cannot be by itself decisive of the question whether the trust is a charity. Much must depend on the purpose of the trust (see p 881 b and e and p 889 f and g, post).

Per Viscount Dilhorne, Lord MacDermott and Lord Hodson. The fiscal privileges of a legal charity are not directly relevant to the determination whether a given trust or purpose is charitable (see p 880 j and p 881 c and d, post).

Notes

For the relief of the poor being a charitable purpose, see 4 Halsbury's Laws (3rd Edn) 213-218, paras 492-495, and for cases on the subject, see 8 Digest (Repl) 316-319, 13-48.

Appeal

By an originating summons dated 30 July 1970 the first respondent, Henry Elliott Turner, trustee of the estate of Frank Hanscomb Dingle deceased ('the testator'), sought inter alia the determination of the question whether the trust declared in cl 8(e), (g), of the testator's will dated 10 January 1950 to apply the income of a legacy of £10,000 and of the residue of his estate in paying pensions to poor employees of E Dingle & Co Ltd was valid as a charitable trust, or was otherwise valid, or was void for perpetuity, uncertainty or some other reason. On 2 April 1971 Megarry J declared that the trust was a valid charitable trust and, on the application of Betty Mary Dingle, one of the persons interested under an intestacy, granted a certificate under s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 enabling her to apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. On 17 May 1971 the House gave leave to appeal under s 13 of the 1969 Act. The second to tenth respondents were representatives of the various classes of employees or ex-employees of E Dingle & Co Ltd, the eleventh respondent was Lloyds Bank Ltd, an executor of the testator's will, and that twelfth respondent was the Attorney General.

C A Settle QC and M W Cockle for the appellant.

W S Wigglesworth QC and Spencer G Maurice for the second to tenth respondents.

N C H Browne-Wilkinson for the Attorney General.

The first and eleventh respondents did not appear and were not represented.

Their Lordships took time for consideration

16 February 1972. The following opinions were delivered.

Order

Appeal dismissed.