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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll