Re Endacott [1959]
Share
Re Endacott [1959] EWCA Civ 5 is a notable English trusts law case that addresses the policy of the beneficiary principle, establishing that, with a few exceptions, trusts for non-charitable purposes are generally invalid.
In this case, Mr Albert Endacott, in his will, outlined a provision where he would bequeath some properties to his son and the remainder to the North Tawton Devon Parish Council. The purpose behind this bequest was stated as being "for the purpose of providing some useful memorial to myself", unless his wife was still alive, in which case the interest was to be paid to her.
Lord Evershed MR delivered the judgment, deeming the trust invalid because it represented a purpose trust that extended beyond the limited list of exceptions recognised in prior cases. Lord Evershed expressed concern that expanding the scope of such exceptions would open the door to a broad range of non-charitable trusts, not strictly public, without clearly ascertainable beneficiaries. He emphasised the well-established principle in English law that, except in charitable trusts, a trust must have identifiable or ascertainable beneficiaries to be effective. While acknowledging the existence of certain anomalous exceptions to this general rule, he argued against further extensions, citing the potential disharmony with the foundational principles of English law.
Re Endacott marked a decisive point in English trusts law by restricting the development of non-charitable purpose trusts. The judgment clarified that only specific categories, such as trusts for animals, graves, saying private masses (and hunting foxes until the Hunting Act 2004), were exceptions to the general rule. The case emphasised the importance of maintaining harmony with the principles of English law and preventing the validation of nearly limitless categories of non-charitable trusts.
In this case, Mr Albert Endacott, in his will, outlined a provision where he would bequeath some properties to his son and the remainder to the North Tawton Devon Parish Council. The purpose behind this bequest was stated as being "for the purpose of providing some useful memorial to myself", unless his wife was still alive, in which case the interest was to be paid to her.
Lord Evershed MR delivered the judgment, deeming the trust invalid because it represented a purpose trust that extended beyond the limited list of exceptions recognised in prior cases. Lord Evershed expressed concern that expanding the scope of such exceptions would open the door to a broad range of non-charitable trusts, not strictly public, without clearly ascertainable beneficiaries. He emphasised the well-established principle in English law that, except in charitable trusts, a trust must have identifiable or ascertainable beneficiaries to be effective. While acknowledging the existence of certain anomalous exceptions to this general rule, he argued against further extensions, citing the potential disharmony with the foundational principles of English law.
Re Endacott marked a decisive point in English trusts law by restricting the development of non-charitable purpose trusts. The judgment clarified that only specific categories, such as trusts for animals, graves, saying private masses (and hunting foxes until the Hunting Act 2004), were exceptions to the general rule. The case emphasised the importance of maintaining harmony with the principles of English law and preventing the validation of nearly limitless categories of non-charitable trusts.
