In Re Endacott, Decd; Corpe v Endacott

A non-charitable purpose trust is generally invalid unless it has identified or identifiable beneficiaries. Recognised anomalous exceptions are narrow and should not be extended to broad public or memorial purposes. A gift to a parish council does not become charitable merely because the council has public functions or statutory power to accept gifts for local public purposes. The words directing expenditure on a useful memorial imposed a trust obligation, not an outright gift, but did not define charitable purposes or a gift for the benefit of local inhabitants. They were too wide and uncertain to be upheld. The gift therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Albert George Endacott's will gave the residue to North Tawton Parish Council to provide a useful memorial, subject to an obligation concerning interest payable to his widow. Mr Justice Danckwerts held that the gift failed for uncertainty. The council appealed, arguing that the words were merely explanatory, or that the trust was a valid public non-charitable purpose trust, or that it was charitable because of the council's statutory functions or because it benefited local inhabitants. The Court of Appeal had to determine the construction and legal character of the gift.

Lord Evershed MR delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Sellers and Lord Justice Harman agreed.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The residuary gift failed for uncertainty. Party and party costs were ordered for the parties other than the Attorney-General.
2. Construction. The words requiring a useful memorial imposed an obligation in the nature of a trust. They were not merely expository and did not confer the residue outright on the parish council. The intended memorial had to be useful rather than merely ornamental, but its utility was not confined to the inhabitants of North Tawton.
3. Charitable character. The gift did not become charitable from the parish council's statutory status or functions. Section 268 of the Local Government Act 1933 permitted gifts for local public purposes, and that expression was not confined to charitable purposes. The powers under section 4(1) of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 likewise extended beyond purely charitable activities. The Recreational Charities Act 1958 did not confine those powers to activities retrospectively deemed charitable. The formula used was also materially different from a gift for the benefit of local inhabitants, which could have charitable effect.
4. Purpose trusts. The narrow anomalous exceptions to the general rule requiring ascertainable beneficiaries were not to be extended to a broad and uncertain memorial purpose. The court treated authorities concerning monuments, clubs and suitable memorials as materially different. It also rejected the suggestion that an invalid purpose trust could survive as a power in English law. The court was prepared to assume, for the argument, that the residuary character of the gift did not alter the analysis.

• Court of Appeal: Appeal dismissed and the decision below upheld.
• High Court: Mr Justice Danckwerts held that the residuary gift failed for uncertainty. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.