Uncertain Charitable gifts
A recent High Court decision has provided much needed clarification of the law on charitable gifts where an organisation’s details are incorrectly stated in a Will, or where a charity has amalgamated or changed its name. It has also highlighted the need for clear and accurate Will drafting, writes legacy dispute lawyer, Naomi Ireson.
If your charity requires specialist legal guidance on the wording of a gift in a Will, then contact legacy dispute lawyer Naomi Ireson for a chat on 0333 888 0439 or email her at [email protected]
In Dryden v Young & Others the court dealt with a legacy dispute involving the residue of the estate of Marjorie Robinson Thompson, valued at around £4.8m, which had been left to no less than 15 different charities in equal shares.
Unfortunately, the identity of seven of the charities named in the Will was uncertain. In some instances the charity’s details were incorrectly stated, and in others, the charity had amalgamated, or changed its name. The seven organisations were:
| Animal Defence Society, 52-53 Dean Street, London W1V 5HJ | ||||||
| Animal Health Trust, 24 Portland Place, London W1N 4HN | ||||||
| Society for Promotion of Nature Reserves, The Manor House, Alford, Lincolnshire | ||||||
| The Donkey Sanctuary, Springfield, Fosters Lane, Woodleigh, Berkshire | ||||||
| The Home Rest for Horses, Sheep Lane, Whitchurch, Shropshire | ||||||
| The Heavy Horses Preservation Society, Old Rectory, Whitchurch, Shropshire | ||||||
| The Society for the Preservation of English Countryside | ||||||
Clause 13 of the Will came in for particular scrutiny. It contained obvious typographical errors, erroneously referring to clause 12, rather than clause 10, and referring to the “said” clause 13 rather than clause 10. It stated:
“I DECLARE that if before my death (or after my death but before my Trustees have given effect to the gift in question) any charitable or other body to which the gift is made under clause 12 hereof has changed its name or amalgamated with or transferred its assets to any other body then my trustees shall distribute such part or parts equally amongst the remaining Organisations mentioned in the said clause 13 of this my Will“.
This was obviously problematic for those charities which had changed their name or amalgamated.
The court was therefore asked by the Administrator of the Estate to consider the construction of the Will and rule on how the gifts to the seven ‘ambiguous’ charities should be treated.
When construing a will a court must, “ascertain the intention of the testator as expressed in their will when it is read as a whole in the light of any extrinsic evidence available for the purposes of construction“.
The judge applied the legal doctrine of cy-près, a term taken from old French and literally meaning, “near to”. This involved the court taking an approach to each gift that was ‘as close as possible’ to the intentions of Marjorie Robinson Thompson, given that it was impossible to follow the strict wording of her Will.
The good news is that the court identified a suitable charity to receive each of the legacies, despite the imperfections of Clause 13 of the Will, making it clear that the courts will strive to give effect to charitable gifts where it is possible to do so.
Nonetheless, the exercise was an expensive one, and underlines how important it is that steps are taken by those who draft Wills to ensure that the finished document is not only accurate, up to date, and free from typographical errors, but also sets out the testator’s intentions clearly and unambiguously.
