Buckley & Ors v Barlow & Ors

A religious trust may be charitable even where its beliefs appear eccentric, delusional or unorthodox. The court must avoid value judgments between religions and sects and must assess the trust by reference to its terms and the circumstances when it was created.

A trust directed to all the purposes of a religious body is not ordinarily exclusively charitable if the body’s purposes include non-charitable objects. However, the Charitable Trusts (Validation) Act 1954 validates an imperfect pre-1952 trust where the property could consistently have been applied exclusively for charity. On construction, a charitable trust expressed to continue indefinitely may remain an outright or perpetual charitable gift despite a void gift over, permitting a cy-pres scheme when the original purpose becomes impossible.

The current trustees sought directions concerning net sale proceeds of approximately £982,000 arising from the sale of a church established under an indenture dated 30 December 1892 for the Agapemonite religious sect.

The sect had become defunct and the church had ceased to be used for its original purposes. The possible destinations included a cy-pres scheme, distribution to historical participants or trustees, and payment to the Crown as bona vacantia. The central issues were whether the 1892 trusts were charitable, whether they were exclusively charitable or validated by statute, and whether the proceeds could be applied cy-pres despite a gift over to the trustees.

1. The court directed that the net proceeds be applied cy-pres under a scheme determined by the Charity Commission. Distribution to the surviving descendants of former sect members was not legally available.

2. The trusts were for the advancement of religion. The court must not pass value judgments on competing religions or sects. The Agapemonites’ references to the Apostles’ Creed, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost showed sufficient connection with Christianity. Eccentric or delusional beliefs did not prevent charitable status where the purpose was to promote religious activities.

3. The trusts were not exclusively charitable on their ordinary construction. The deed referred to “all the purposes” and “the objects” of the body, whose activities included non-charitable purposes. Nevertheless, the Charitable Trusts (Validation) Act 1954 applied because the deed pre-dated 16 December 1952 and the property could consistently have been used exclusively for charitable purposes. The disposition was therefore treated as a valid charitable trust.

4. A cy-pres occasion had arisen because the sect had ceased to exist as an effective religious body. Whether the trust was outright or perpetual depended on construction of the deed. The words “at all times hereafter”, the absence of an express duration, the gift over being subject and without prejudice to the primary trusts, and the absence of specified failure events showed a perpetual charitable trust. The gift over was void for perpetuity but did not prevent cy-pres application.

First-instance application for directions. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.