## Facts

- A testator died in 1932 leaving a will that (1) gave £1,000 to a friend, Mr. Lloyd, to be applied at his absolute discretion “for the promotion and furthering of fox hunting,” and (2) left the residuary estate to Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
- Mr. Lloyd accepted that he was not intended to take the £1,000 beneficially and stated he would apply it to the stated purpose so far as lawful, offering a formal undertaking to do so.
- The executors sought the court’s direction by originating summons on whether the £1,000 gift was valid or instead failed and fell into the residue for Trinity Hall.

## Issues

1. Whether a testamentary gift for a non-charitable purpose (“promotion and furthering of fox hunting”) is invalid for lack of a human beneficiary entitled to enforce the trust.
2. Whether the purpose described is sufficiently certain to be carried out by the recipient.
3. Whether the arrangement is impermissible as a non-charitable purpose trust tending toward perpetuity or otherwise lacking an enforcement mechanism.

## Decision

- The Chancery Division (Clauson J) held the £1,000 gift was valid as a limited non-charitable purpose trust.
- The court ordered payment of the £1,000 to Mr. Lloyd on condition that he give a formal undertaking to apply the money to the stated purpose.
- The court provided that, if the money were applied otherwise than toward the stated purpose, the residuary legatee (Trinity Hall) could apply to the court.

## Legal Principles

- Non-charitable purpose trusts are generally invalid because they lack a beneficiary with standing to enforce them, but a narrow class of exceptional purpose dispositions has been upheld where enforcement can be practically secured.
- A purpose described as “promotion and furthering of fox hunting” can satisfy certainty of purpose when it is defined clearly enough to be given effect.
- A finite legacy directed to be spent for a purpose is less likely to offend rules against perpetuity than a continuing non-charitable endowment.
- Courts may validate such exceptional purpose arrangements by (i) requiring the recipient to give an undertaking to apply the money to the specified purpose and (ii) permitting residuary beneficiaries to seek relief if the undertaking is breached.

## Conclusion

The court treated the £1,000 gift for fox hunting as a valid, exceptional non-charitable purpose trust because the purpose was sufficiently definite, the fund was finite, and enforceability was addressed through the recipient’s undertaking coupled with the residuary beneficiary’s right to seek the court’s intervention if the money was misapplied.


In re Thompson, [1934] Ch. 342 (Ch. 1933)