Re Chapman. Hales v Attorney General

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1922
Date1922
CourtCourt of Appeal

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Koh Lau Keow v AG
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 19 August 2013
    ...A trust for the advancement of religion was also presumed to be for the public benefit: at [41] , [44] and [45] . Chapman, Re [1922] 2 Ch 479 (folld) Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance (Inc) v Simpson [1944] AC 341 (folld) Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax, The......
  • Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 19 August 2013
    ...beneficiary principle and is thus void (see e.g. In Re Davis, Thomas v Davis [1923] 1 Ch 225, In Re Chapman, Hales v Attorney-General [1922] 2 Ch 479, In Re Davidson, Minty v Bourne [1909] 1 Ch 567). The position has since been legislatively altered by s 64 of the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 199......
  • Phillips v Crawford
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 30 June 2017
    ...23 24 25 Buckle v Bristow (1864) 10 Jur NS 1095. Yeap Cheah Neo v Ong Cheng Neo (1875) LR 6 PC 381. Re Chapman, Hales v Attorney-General [1922] 2 Ch 479 for such objects and such purposes as he may in his discretion select and to be at his own disposal.” It was held that no good charitable ......