During his life time Brendon was a member of the Tetherdown Theatre Club, which was a non-charitable unincorporated association. Membership fees were used for various purposes, including for rental of a local theatre space. In the summer of 2004, the club organised a workshop for local children and in order to raise money for the workshop, the club sold 50 tickets to a performance that was scheduled to take placed in the final week of the three week theatre workshop. The tickets were sold for £5.00 each. The children attending the workshops also collected money for the performance by putting on street performances and asking for donations from passers by. A total of £200 was raised by this method. Brendon donated £500 to the club by a cheque he sent to club treasurer Liz, accompanied by the letter stating that the money was for the final performance at the end of the children's theatre workshop.
[...] The case of Re William Denby & Sons Limited Sick and Benevolent Fund classified four categories of cases in which an unincorporated association could be regarded as being dissolved in order for its assets to become distributable: In accordance with the rules (no evidence in the current scenario of the club having any such rules regarding distribution); By agreement of all persons interested; By a court order; or When the substratum on which the society was founded had gone so the society no longer had any effective purpose. [...]
[...] In order to advise Liz with regard to the distribution of the monies in the club's accounts it will be necessary to consider the law relating to the dissolution of unincorporated associations and distribution of assets. An unincorporated association comprises a group of individuals joined to promote a common purpose or purposes, which is not commercial. They do not have legal personality, and cannot therefore hold property and the title of the association will identify its members. Lawton LJ asserted the definition of unincorporated associations in the leading cease of Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell as: or more persons bound together for one or more common purposes, not being business purposes, but mutual undertakings, each having mutual duties and obligations, in and organisation which has rules which identify in whom control of it and its funds rests and upon what terms and which can be joined or left at will”. [...]
[...] Trust Law Text and Materials. Cambridge University Press. Wrightington, Sydney., (2001). The Law of Unincorporated Associations. Lawbook Exchange. Garnder., (1992) New angles on unincorporated associations. Conv 41 Bright., (1989). Charity and Trusts for the Public Benefit. Conv 28 Green. (1980) Dissolution of unincorporated associations MLR 626. Mckay., (1973). Trusts for Purposes. Conv 420. Alistair Hudson (2007). Equity and Trusts. 5th Edition Routledge- Cavendish. Alistair Hudson (2007) ibid.  1 WLR 522. Ibid. Ramjohn, Mohammed (2005). [...]
[...] Brendon's legacy to Barney is expressed to be as long as the law allows” and the case of Pirbright v Salwey establishes that the gift in such cases is valid for 21 years. However, a degree of discretion is permitted to take account of the longevity of the animals in an attempt to preserve the gift. Accordingly, provided Abby is willing to look after Barney, the legacy will be valid as a private purpose trust with imperfect obligation. As the legacy is for as “long as the law allows” it will be limited in perpetuity under the section 15(4) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. [...]
[...] Textbook on Trusts. 7th Edition Oxford University Press. Ramjohn, Mohammed., (2005) op. cit.  1 WLR 973. Ibid. GKN Bolts & Nuts  1 WLR 774.  2 CH 84. Ramjohn, Mohammed., (2005) op. cit. John Duddington., (2006). Essentials on Equity and Trusts Law. Pearson Education.  Ch 144.  Ch 51. Ibid. Re Bucks.,  op. cit  op.cit  op. cit.  [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee