header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Stephen Claus
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Community care
printer mail-detail

The public benefit test

What’s all the fuss about? asks Stephen Claus

Section 1 of the Charities Act 2006 (ChaA 2006) introduces for the first time a statutory definition of charity. In s 2(1)(b) we find that for purpose to be classified as a charitable purpose it must also be for the public benefit. ChaA 2006, s 3 goes on to prescribe the public benefit test. Here we find that for a purpose to be within the meaning of charitable purpose it must be for the public benefit.

 

THE OLD LAW

Before ChaA 2006 (the classification is extended from four to 13 heads when enacted) there were four heads of charity as set out in the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in Income Tax Special Comrs v Pemsel [1891] AC 531. They are: the relief of poverty; the advancement of religion; the advancement of education; and other purposes beneficial to the community.

In respect of the first three heads of charity there is a rebuttable presumption that the public benefit test was satisfied. ChaA 2006 has removed this presumption and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll