NOTES OF CASES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1948.tb00087.x |
| Published date | 01 April 1948 |
| Date | 01 April 1948 |
NOTES
OF
CASES
DEFINITION
OF
CHARITY-BENEFIT
TO
TlIE
COMhlUNlTY
In
National Anti-Vivisection Society
v.
Z.R.C.,
[1947]
2
All
E.R.
217,
the
House
of Lords rejected the claim of the Society
to
be
exempt from income tax as being
‘
a
body of persons established for
charitable purposes only
’,
within the meaning
of
the Income
Tax
Act, 1918,
s.
87
(1)
(b).
Lord
Simonds, in moving that the Society’s claim fail since its
aims did not from the evidence appear to
be
for the public benefit,
strongly disapproved the words of Chitty,
J.,
in
Re Fooeaitm,
[1895]
2
Ch.D.
507
:
‘
The (Society’s) intention is to benefit the community
;
whether,
if
they achieved their object, the community would
in
fact
be
benefited is
a
question on which
I
think the court is not required
to express
an
opinion
’.
Thc significance of the present case cannot
he
overcstimuted.
It
is laid down authoritatively that the intcntion
of
the founder of
a
mciety
or
trust
to
benefit the community is not
a
sufficient test
88
to
whether
a
valid charity is created.
The
court must decide
itself,
by weighing the evidence, whether
a
society is likely
to
benefit
the community
or
not. This question, moreover, is the vitd one;
by
it every intended charity stands
or
falls, and the fact that
it
can
be categorised under one
of
the four headings laid down by
Lord
Macnaghten in
Pemsel’s
Case,
[lsol]
A.C.
581,
so
far from
being
conclusive, merely raises
a
presumption that thc objects are
for
the benefit of the community and therefore charitable
unless
the contrary is shown. Thus the ultimate test of
a
charity is
an
objective one.
Lord Wright, who moved dismissal
of
the appeal on the same
grounds, went
so
far
a6 to weigh up the
pros
and cons of the
Society’s activities, and decided that the material benefits likely to
accrue
to
mankind from the practice of vivisection far outwcighed
the
‘
vague and problematical moral elevation
’
which mas the
Society’s ultimate purpose. As Lord Wright states the cvidence,
the case is clear
;
nevertheless one can easily imagine
cases
in which
the courts would
be
called upon to weigh material against spiritual
benefits in circumstances where the balance is
so
cvcn that one
would
be
in danger
of
basing one’s judgment on aiceptance
or
refusal of
a
materialist philosophy. One can
also
visualise the
converse case
:
a
society claiming to
be
a
charity because it benefits
the
community’s
physical welfare, while at the same time its moral
effects
art?
mely to
be
disastrous.
It
seems quite safe to say,
moreover, that our moral sensibilities change from
one
generation
228
To continue reading
Request your trial