Imperial Cancer Research Fund & Ors v Bradley & Anor

A charitable bequest does not fail merely because the institution’s premises have closed, been sold or ceased to exist. The court must construe the will to identify whether the testator intended to benefit the institution’s charitable purposes or only its activities at particular premises. Where the charity continues to exist and holds funds dedicated to those purposes, the gift may be added to those funds. A misdescription of the trustees does not invalidate a gift for exclusively charitable purposes. An accruer clause addresses the consequences of failure and cannot determine whether the gift has failed.

Clara Broadbent left one-third of her residue to the Vicar and Church Wardens of St Matthew’s Church, Stalybridge, for the general purposes of the church, with a request that the money be used primarily for maintaining the fabric. The church building had closed and been sold before her death. Its proceeds were held by trustees under a 1913 declaration of trust containing powers to acquire replacement premises or apply funds to other religious or charitable purposes.

The High Court held that the gift had not failed, but confined the applicable trusts to the replacement-building limb. The research charities appealed because they would benefit if the gift failed. The trustees served a respondent’s notice seeking application of both limbs of the 1913 trust.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal was allowed. The High Court’s order was varied so that the whole of clause (ix) of the 1913 deed applied to the bequest.
2. The court’s task was to construe the will in its factual context and give effect to the testatrix’s testamentary intention. The gift was made to the named church as a charity and for its general purposes. It was not expressly or impliedly conditional upon the continued existence, ownership or use of the particular church building.
3. The closure and sale of the building did not end the charity. The 1913 deed expressly authorised a sale and redirected the proceeds to charitable trusts. Both the power to acquire or erect replacement premises and the alternative power to apply funds to other religious or charitable purposes formed part of the church’s general purposes.
4. The inaccurate reference to a Vicar and Church Wardens did not defeat the gift. A gift for an exclusively charitable purpose does not fail because the persons described as trustees are misdescribed.
5. The accruer clause was neutral. It operated only if the gift failed and could not resolve the logically prior construction question.
6. The court stated that the same approach was consistent with the authorities. The relevant inquiry is whether the testator intended to benefit a charitable purpose promoted by the institution, rather than only the institution’s work at particular premises. A gift will not fail merely because the institution used as the means of promoting that purpose has closed, moved, amalgamated or otherwise changed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Imperial Cancer Research Fund & Ors v Bradley & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 714. Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed to vary the trusts applicable to the bequest.
• High Court, Chancery Division: HHJ Maddocks held that the gift had not failed, but excluded the alternative charitable-purpose limb of clause (ix) of the 1913 deed.