Hi, These are selected excerpts from Griffith model answer to Question 5, April 2008.
There is no exhaustive definition of poverty. In Re Gardom a gify of temporary residence for 'ladies of limited means' was held to be charitable. While in Re Segleman deceased, a gift to poor members of the testators family was held to be a trust for a charitable purporse. In re Compton it was held that the public benefit would not be satisfied when the beneficiaries could be identified by reference to thei relationship with the donor, however, Martin argues that the public benefit requirment for charitable trusts for the relief of poverty has vanisjed due to the courts recognition of the so called 'poor relations trusts. It appears that poor relation trusts are the general exception to the rile set down in Compton. The court upheld an apprenticeship fund for two families in White v White. The court in in re Segleman deceased held that a gift for the benefit for the poor is prima facie a gift for the relief of poverty and it is no less charitable if it is limited to a class of persons by virtue of blood relationship or indeed employment. Poor relations was extended to employees in Dingle v turner. Hope this clarifies, position. Basically in light of Re Segleman particularly, the Compton public benefit test is in a sense put to one side in the interests of a general greater good. On Oct 4, 9:15 am, lionel <[email protected]> wrote: > HELP! i'm a little confused. is it charitable to leave propt'y for > your poor relations but not charitable to leave it to named > individuals? if so, what case/s support this? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/fe-1-study-group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
