ABSTRACT
There must be identifiable human beneficiaries who can enforce the trust (Morice v Bishop of Durham (1895)). Most cases under this heading tend to have the relevant object as being a purpose rather than a person.
|
Cases: |
|
|---|---|
|
Re Pinion (1965) |
The testator had bequeathed his art studio and set up a trust to have his works exhibited as a museum. After considering expert evidence of their lack of educational value the court held that the trust failed as a charity and hence was purely a non-charitable-purpose trust and hence void for want of a beneficiary. The court referred to the testator's works as a ‘heap of junk’ and ‘atrociously bad’. |
|
Re Shaw (1957) |
George Bernard Shaw set up a testamentary trust to promote a new 40-letter alphabet. The court rejected the educational value of the alphabet and held the trust to be a non-charitable-purpose trust and hence void for want of a human beneficiary. |
|
Re Astor (1952) |
The testator created a testamentary trust for the promotion of unity between nations and for the integrity of newspapers. There was no human beneficiary and hence the trust failed. |
