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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll