## Facts

- A trust was established for the maintenance and use of a sports ground, intended for the benefit of a company's employees.
- The trust deed specified that the sports ground was to be utilized by the employees for recreational purposes.
- The central legal question was whether this trust, established for a specific purpose rather than for named individual beneficiaries, was valid in English law.

## Issues

1. Whether a trust established for a specific purpose rather than direct individual beneficiaries could be considered valid in English law.
2. Whether the employees' indirect benefit from the use of the sports ground satisfied the beneficiary principle necessary for the enforcement of trusts.

## Decision

- The court held that the trust was valid as it conferred practical, tangible benefits on a defined group of employees who had a legitimate interest in its enforcement.
- The indirect but real benefit to the employees was deemed sufficient to fulfill the beneficiary principle.
- The trust avoided classification as a "pure purpose trust" because it benefitted identifiable individuals, albeit indirectly.
- The court concluded that such purpose trusts are enforceable when ascertainable individuals have standing to ensure their execution.

## Legal Principles

- The beneficiary principle, as established in prior authorities, requires identifiable persons to have standing to enforce a trust.
- The court recognized an exception for non-charitable purpose trusts where tangible benefits accrue to identifiable individuals, allowing those individuals to enforce the trust.
- The decision marked a departure from the traditional strictness of the beneficiary principle, permitting greater flexibility where the trust serves both a purpose and a group of individuals.
- The principle does not completely abrogate the need for beneficiaries; rather, it allows enforcement where those affected by the trust’s purpose are sufficiently ascertainable.

## Conclusion

Re Denley [1969] 1 Ch 373 represents a significant development in trust law, confirming that trusts for non-charitable purposes will be upheld when they confer tangible, enforceable benefits on identifiable individuals, thus introducing flexibility to the traditional beneficiary principle.