St Mary & St Michael Parish Advisory Company Ltd v Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee & Ors

A charitable trust deed must be construed from its words read in their historical context. Trusts created for a Roman Catholic church, schools and cemetery were not confined to the later parish or its parishioners where the deed imposed no geographical limitation and no parish existed when it was made.

A school satisfies a trust requiring education according to Roman Catholic doctrine even though some pupils are not Catholic, provided the school remains under appropriate ecclesiastical control and operates with a Catholic character. Trustees may approve a development serving wider Catholic educational and community interests where it falls within the trust purposes.

The claimant, a parish advisory company, challenged the proposed use of land held under a trust deed dated 5 September 1851. The land was intended to form part of a Learning Village integrating Catholic primary, secondary and sixth-form education in Tower Hamlets.

The claimant contended that the trusts benefited only the local parish and required a school serving Catholic children. It also challenged the trustees’ decision-making, including the absence of the Head Priest from the trusteeship and the defendants’ earlier reliance on a different trust deed. The defendants sought declarations supporting the scheme and, alternatively, cy-près relief.

1. Construction of the trust. The 1851 deed stated that the land was held upon the trusts and purposes expressed in it. It contained no words limiting the objects to the Parish of St Mary and St Michael or to its parishioners. Such a limitation was also inconsistent with the historical position, since there were no Roman Catholic parishes in England in 1851 and missions had fluid boundaries.
2. The role of the Head Priest in managing the church and schools did not restrict the trust purposes. His management was subject to obedience to the ecclesiastical superior, and he had no special power which confined the trust to local parish purposes.
3. Catholicity. The requirement that schools educate poor children according to Roman Catholic doctrine did not require every pupil to be Catholic. The proposed schools remained Catholic schools because they were subject to ecclesiastical control, gave priority to Catholic applicants, taught Catholic doctrine and maintained a Catholic ethos. The presence of non-Catholic pupils therefore did not take the proposed use outside the trust.
4. Trustees’ decisions. Failure to appoint the Head Priest did not invalidate earlier decisions. The deed did not suspend the trustees’ powers during that irregularity, so the requirement was directory rather than mandatory. Fr Hayes, as parochial administrator, was the duly officiating Priest and a valid trustee from 17 February 2006.
5. The trustees’ decision on 17 February 2006 was properly informed. They considered the dispute, the project’s educational and community advantages, and the evidence that the disputed land was essential to implementation. The first defendant was entitled, and indeed obliged, to participate. Earlier procedural defects would not in any event prevent a properly constituted trustee from making a fresh decision.
6. The claim therefore failed. It was unnecessary to determine the alternative cy-près application.