## Facts

- The testator, by will, left a sum of money to be used for the promotion of fox hunting.
- The executors of the will sought court guidance on whether this bequest could be upheld as a valid trust.
- The main question was whether a trust for fox hunting, a non-charitable purpose, could be enforced given the lack of identifiable beneficiaries.
- Fox hunting, while not considered charitable, was lawful and was regarded as beneficial to certain groups at the time.
- There was a trustee prepared to implement the trust's objectives as stipulated in the will.

## Issues

1. Whether a trust established for the promotion of fox hunting, which is not a charitable purpose, could be valid and enforceable.
2. Whether such a non-charitable purpose trust met the requirements of having identifiable beneficiaries or fell within any recognized exceptions.

## Decision

- The court held that the trust for fox hunting could be recognized as valid under certain conditions.
- It found that a non-charitable purpose trust may be upheld if the purpose is lawful, does not offend public policy, is sufficiently defined, and a trustee is willing to enforce the trust.
- The court determined that, in this case, a trustee was willing to ensure the use of the funds for fox hunting, and the purpose was lawful at the time.
- Accordingly, the trust did not fail solely for lacking traditional beneficiaries.

## Legal Principles

- English law generally requires that trusts have identifiable beneficiaries (the beneficiary principle), with non-charitable purpose trusts usually unenforceable.
- An exception exists for non-charitable purpose trusts if the purpose is not contrary to public policy, is lawful, clearly defined, and there is a trustee willing and able to enforce the terms.
- The presence of a willing trustee is essential for the enforceability of such a trust.
- The judgment emphasized that the court would not override the legal framework of trusts based on moral objections where the activity is lawful and not prohibited.

## Conclusion

Re Thompson [1934] Ch 342 confirmed that certain non-charitable purpose trusts, such as those promoting fox hunting, can be valid when they fulfill requirements of lawfulness, clear definition, and enforceability, thus illustrating a narrowly construed exception to the beneficiary principle in English trust law.
