Re Buckinghamshire, [1978] 1 WLR 641

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

A local community group in Champion Village established a support fund to assist a fledgling sports team through voluntary contributions from residents. The fund was neither registered nor recognized as a charitable entity, focusing instead on procuring uniforms and equipment for the team. After a substantial sum was raised and all necessities were purchased, the team ultimately disbanded when it merged with a larger sports organization elsewhere. The trustees are now unsure how to distribute the unspent money, given that the original purpose of the fund can no longer be fulfilled. The contributors have presented conflicting viewpoints, with some requesting their contributions returned while others argue for donating the funds to a local youth initiative.


Which of the following principles, based on the legal approach refined in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) [1978], most accurately dictates how the leftover funds in this non-charitable trust should be handled?

Introduction

The case of Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) [1978] 1 WLR 641 is a significant decision in English trust law, addressing the treatment of leftover money in charitable trusts. The main question for the Court of Appeal was determining how leftover money should be dealt with when a trust ends. The case established key rules about how leftover assets should be shared in charitable and non-charitable trusts, particularly when the trust's purpose has been fulfilled or can no longer be achieved.

The judgment outlined the legal rules for managing leftover money, focusing on the difference between resulting trusts and the cy-près doctrine in charitable trusts. The court considered the intentions of the person who set up the trust, the type of trust, and the legal rules for sharing leftover assets. This case remains an important reference in trust law, providing clear guidance on managing leftover money and the rules of resulting trusts.

Legal Principles and Context

Resulting Trusts and Leftover Money

A resulting trust occurs when property is given to a trustee, but the benefit returns to the person who set up the trust or their estate because the trust's purpose has failed or been fulfilled. In Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2), the court examined whether leftover money from a police welfare fund should return to the contributors under a resulting trust or be used for other purposes.

The court decided that the leftover money was held on a resulting trust for the contributors, as the trust's purpose had been fulfilled. This decision supported the rule that, unless there is a clear alternative intention, leftover money in a non-charitable trust returns to the person who set up the trust or the contributors under a resulting trust.

Charitable Trusts and the Cy-Près Doctrine

Unlike non-charitable trusts, charitable trusts follow the cy-près doctrine, which allows leftover money to be used for purposes similar to the original charitable goal when the initial goal becomes impossible or impractical. The court in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) made a clear distinction between how leftover money is handled in charitable and non-charitable trusts, stating that the cy-près doctrine does not apply to non-charitable trusts.

This distinction is important in trust law, as it determines the legal rules for sharing leftover money. Charitable trusts benefit from the flexibility of the cy-près doctrine, while non-charitable trusts follow the stricter rules of resulting trusts.

Analysis of the Judgment

Factual Background

The case involved a fund set up for the welfare of members of the Buckinghamshire Constabulary and their dependents. The fund was funded by voluntary contributions from police officers and other sources. When the Buckinghamshire Constabulary merged with other police forces, the fund's purpose became outdated, and the question arose about how to share the leftover money.

The trustees asked the court for guidance on how to distribute the leftover money. The main issue was whether the leftover money should return to the contributors under a resulting trust or be used for other purposes, such as the welfare of the merged police force.

Court's Reasoning

The Court of Appeal decided that the leftover money was held on a resulting trust for the contributors. The court emphasized that the fund was a non-charitable trust, and the contributors had not intended to give up their benefit in the funds. The lack of a clear alternative intention meant that the leftover money returned to the contributors under a resulting trust.

The court rejected the argument that the leftover money should be used for the benefit of the merged police force, as this would go against the contributors' intentions. The decision highlighted the importance of respecting the intentions of the person who set up the trust or the contributors when deciding how to share leftover money.

Implications for Trust Law

The judgment in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) has significant effects on trust law, particularly in how leftover money is handled. The case made it clear that, in non-charitable trusts, leftover money usually returns to the person who set up the trust or the contributors under a resulting trust unless there is a clear alternative intention.

This rule ensures that the benefit in trust property is not unfairly taken away from the person who set up the trust or the contributors. The case also highlighted the distinction between charitable and non-charitable trusts, supporting the use of the cy-près doctrine for charitable trusts and the resulting trust rule for non-charitable trusts.

Practical Applications and Case Studies

Non-Charitable Trusts

The rules set out in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) have been applied in many cases involving non-charitable trusts. For example, in Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300, the court decided that leftover money from a public appeal for the victims of a bus disaster was held on a resulting trust for the contributors. The court emphasized that the contributors had not intended to give up their benefit in the funds, and the leftover money returned to them under a resulting trust.

Similarly, in Re West Sussex Constabulary's Widows, Children and Benevolent (1930) Fund Trusts [1971] Ch 1, the court used the resulting trust rule to distribute leftover money from a police welfare fund to the contributors. These cases show the consistent application of the rules set out in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) in non-charitable trusts.

Charitable Trusts

In contrast, charitable trusts benefit from the flexibility of the cy-près doctrine, which allows leftover money to be used for purposes similar to the original charitable goal. For example, in Re Lepton's Charity [1972] Ch 276, the court used the cy-près doctrine to redirect leftover money from a charitable trust to a similar charitable purpose. The court emphasized that the cy-près doctrine is meant to ensure that charitable funds are used for charitable purposes, even if the original goal becomes impossible or impractical.

These cases highlight the different treatment of leftover money in charitable and non-charitable trusts, as set out in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2).

Conclusion

The judgment in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) [1978] 1 WLR 641 provides clear guidance on how to handle leftover money in trusts. The case established that, in non-charitable trusts, leftover money usually returns to the person who set up the trust or the contributors under a resulting trust unless there is a clear alternative intention. This rule ensures that the benefit in trust property is respected and not unfairly taken away.

The case also supported the distinction between charitable and non-charitable trusts, with charitable trusts benefiting from the flexibility of the cy-près doctrine. The rules set out in Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Fund (No 2) have been consistently applied in later cases, providing a clear legal framework for distributing leftover money in trusts. This judgment remains an important reference in trust law, offering useful information on handling leftover money and the rules of resulting trusts.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal