Re Shaw [1957]
Share
Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 revolved around whether an object aiming to promote the increase of knowledge could be considered charitable. The key principle derived from this case is that such an object is not deemed charitable unless it is combined with elements of teaching or education.
George Bernard Shaw, in his will, directed his trustee to take various steps to prove the efficiency of an alphabet with letters corresponding to each sound, to transliterate his play into this alphabet, and to publish the transliterated work. The High Court held that this trust was non-charitable. The court found that the trust's purpose was neither educational nor of general utility but rather political in nature.
Justice Harman elaborated that the purpose of the trust was not educational. Merely increasing public knowledge through research and propaganda about the benefits of the proposed alphabet did not constitute education. The propaganda aimed at persuading the public that the new alphabet was beneficial, which is distinct from education. The court emphasised that education involves more than just disseminating information or advocating for a cause.
Additionally, the trust was not considered to be of general utility. For a task to qualify as such, it must be widely accepted that it provides a public benefit. In this case, the benefit of Shaw's proposed alphabet was highly controversial and not universally recognised. The mere fact that Shaw believed in its benefit was not enough to establish its general utility. The necessity of propaganda to convince the public further underscored its controversial nature, indicating that the trust's purpose was more aligned with political objectives than with public benefit.
This case was later qualified in Re Hopkins, where some of the principles were revisited, but Re Shaw remains a significant case in distinguishing between educational purposes and those deemed political or of questionable public utility.
George Bernard Shaw, in his will, directed his trustee to take various steps to prove the efficiency of an alphabet with letters corresponding to each sound, to transliterate his play into this alphabet, and to publish the transliterated work. The High Court held that this trust was non-charitable. The court found that the trust's purpose was neither educational nor of general utility but rather political in nature.
Justice Harman elaborated that the purpose of the trust was not educational. Merely increasing public knowledge through research and propaganda about the benefits of the proposed alphabet did not constitute education. The propaganda aimed at persuading the public that the new alphabet was beneficial, which is distinct from education. The court emphasised that education involves more than just disseminating information or advocating for a cause.
Additionally, the trust was not considered to be of general utility. For a task to qualify as such, it must be widely accepted that it provides a public benefit. In this case, the benefit of Shaw's proposed alphabet was highly controversial and not universally recognised. The mere fact that Shaw believed in its benefit was not enough to establish its general utility. The necessity of propaganda to convince the public further underscored its controversial nature, indicating that the trust's purpose was more aligned with political objectives than with public benefit.
This case was later qualified in Re Hopkins, where some of the principles were revisited, but Re Shaw remains a significant case in distinguishing between educational purposes and those deemed political or of questionable public utility.
