Attorney General v Ross and others

[1985] 3 All ER 334

---

Between: Attorney General
And: Ross and others

Court:

Judge: Scott J

Subject References:
Charity
Education
Educational purposes
Students' union
Union founded to provide and develop scientific, artistic, cultural, athletic, political, religious and social activities among students
Constitution also providing for affiliation with National Union of Students
Whether union formed for furthering educational purposes of polytechnic
Whether funds of union held on trusts exclusively charitable at law

Case References:
London Hospital Medical College v IRC - [1976] 2 All ER 113 applied.
IRC v City of Glasgow Police Athletic Association - [1953] 1 All ER 747; [1953] AC 380; [1953] 2 WLR 625, HL
IRC v Yorkshire Agricultural Society - [1928] 1 KB 611; [1927] All ER Rep 536, CA
London Hospital Medical College v IRC - [1976] 2 All ER 113; [1976] 1 WLR 613
Oxford Group v IRC - [1949] 2 All ER 537, CA
Royal College of Surgeons of England v National Provincial Bank Ltd - [1952] 1 All ER 984; [1952] AC 631, HL
A-G v Brazen Nose College Oxford - (1834) 2 Cl & Fin 295; 6 ER 1166
Baldry v Feintuck - [1972] 2 All ER 81; [1972] 1 WLR 552
Geologists Association v IRC - (1928) 14 TC 271, CA
Hood, Re, Public Trustee v Hood - [1931] 1 Ch 240; [1930] All ER Rep 215, CA
IRC v McMullen - [1980] 1 All ER 884; [1981] AC 1, HL
McGovern v A-G - [1981] 3 All ER 493; [1982] Ch 321
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC - [1947] 2 All ER 217; [1948] AC 31, HL
Royal College of Nursing v St Marylebone Corp - [1959] 3 All ER 663; [1959] 1 WLR 1077, CA
Schuler (L) AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd - [1973] 2 All ER 39; [1974] AC 235, HL
Shore v Wilson - 8 ER 450, HL

Hearing date: 23, 24, 25 July 1985
Judgment date: 31 July 1985

---

In 1971 a London polytechnic founded a students' union as required by its constitution. The union was an integral part of the polytechnic, which was a registered charity. The objects of the union as set out in its constitution were, inter alia, to provide an official organisation representing the students of the polytechnic, to provide and develop scientific, artistic, cultural, athletic, political, religious and social activities among the students, to promote their general welfare and to advance the interest of the polytechnic as a whole in all appropriate ways. In addition, the constitution provided for the union to be affiliated to the National Union of Students and to represent the students in their relations with external bodies. It further provided that the union's funds were to be held 'upon trust for the purpose of the Union'. In December 1984 the union proposed making payments of £5,000 in support of striking mineworkers and in aid of the victims of the Ethiopian famine. The Attorney General took the view that the proposed payments were for purposes which were outside the scope of the union's objects and would therefore be ultra vires. He sought an injunction restraining the union from making the payments. The question arose whether the Attorney General had locus standi to maintain the action, and a preliminary issue was tried on the question whether the union's funds were held on charitable trusts, since only if they were would the Attorney General have the locus standi to intervene. The union contended that although some of its objects were charitable others, such as the affiliation with the National Union of Students and representation on outside bodies, were not and that that, and the activities of the union since its formation, showed that the main purpose of the union was not charitable but to give effect to the political views of its members.

Held - Activities of an organisation which were ultra vires and non-charitable were irrelevant to determining whether the main purpose of an organisation was or was not charitable. On the true construction of the union's constitution, assessed in the context of the factual background to its formation, the union was formed and existed for the charitable purpose of furthering, and did further, the education function of the polytechnic, and the non-charitable activities which, by its constitution, the union was authorised to carry on were, as a matter of degree, merely the ancillary means by which the overall charitable purpose could be pursued. It followed that the general funds of the union were held on trusts which were exclusively charitable (see p 343 j to p 344 a and p 345 a b, post).

Notes

For charities for educational purposes, see 5 Halsbury's Laws (4th edn) paras 522-527, and for cases on the subject, see 8(1) Digest (Reissue) 257-266, 112-158.

For the Attorney General as a necessary party, see 5 Halsbury's Laws (4th edn) para 934, and for cases on the subject, see 8(1) Digest (Reissue) 465-466, 2213-2224.

Preliminary issue

By a writ dated 11 December 1984 the plaintiff, the Attorney General, sought as against the defendants, Peter Ross, Philip Brett and Peter Redman, respectively the president, treasurer and vice-president of the students union of the North London Polytechnic, inter alia, an injunction restraining the union from making out of union funds proposed payments of £5,000 to members of the National Union of Mineworkers and victims of the Ethiopian famine. On 4 February 1985 Peter Gibson J ordered to be tried as a preliminary issue the question whether the funds of the union were held on trusts exclusively charitable at law and, if so, on what trusts. The facts are set out in the judgment.