Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney-General

A non-profit institution established to prepare and publish reliable law reports may be charitable. The commercial sale of its publications, and their necessary use by lawyers in earning fees, do not prevent that conclusion where no member may profit and the professional benefit is incidental to the institution’s public purpose.

The publication and dissemination of authoritative judicial decisions advances education because it enables the study, improvement and public dissemination of legal knowledge. It is also a purpose beneficial to the community within the fourth charitable head, since reliable law reporting supports the development, administration and accessibility of the law.

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting applied to be registered as a charity under Charities Act 1960. The Charity Commissioners refused registration after an objection by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Foster J allowed the Council’s appeal in the Chancery Division, holding that its purposes fell within the fourth charitable head: 1971 Chancery Division, page 626. He rejected its alternative contention that it was an educational charity. The Inland Revenue appealed, while the Council relied additionally on the educational ground.

The central issue was whether the Council’s non-profit publication of law reports was exclusively charitable despite their commercial sale and their substantial use by practising lawyers.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Council was established for exclusively charitable purposes and was entitled to registration under Charities Act 1960.

2. Russell LJ held that reliable and selective reporting of judicial decisions benefits the community. In a system founded partly on judicial exposition and precedent, it promotes the sound development and administration of the law and makes the law accessible. That was a purpose of general public utility within the fourth charitable head. There was no reason to exclude it from the equity of the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601.

3. Sachs LJ and Buckley LJ held that the Council’s primary purpose also advanced education. Law is a learned subject and a science. Authoritative reports provide essential material for acquiring, maintaining and disseminating knowledge of it. Education in this sense includes the improvement of a useful branch of human knowledge and its public dissemination.

4. The fact that lawyers use law reports as professional equipment did not alter the Council’s purpose. Their ability to earn fees was a consequence of the dissemination of legal knowledge, not a separate non-charitable object. The same was true of the Council’s commercial method of publishing and selling reports. Its members could not receive profits, and any surplus could only be used to pursue its objects.

5. The subsidiary objects, including related legal publications and the publication of statutes, were ancillary to the primary charitable purpose. Buckley LJ also agreed with Russell LJ that the wider public-utility ground independently supported the result.

• Court of Appeal: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue’s appeal was dismissed. The Council was held entitled to charitable registration.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Foster J allowed the Council’s appeal from the refusal of registration, holding that its purposes were charitable under the fourth head: 1971 Chancery Division, page 626.