Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Performing and Captive Animals Defence League ("the League") was founded in 1914 and operated under an adopted constitution until 1934, which has since been lost. After 1934, the League dispensed with its executive committee and appointed a Director with power to form an advisory committee. The League's objects, as stated in a 1962 booklet, included preventing cruelty to performing animals and opposing certain activities such as municipal zoos, bullfights, and rodeos. The League never registered as a charity, and in 1949 the Inland Revenue decided it did not have charitable status because its principal objects were to change the law, a decision not appealed by the League.

By the mid-1960s, the League had approximately 250 members, including Mr and Mrs Hanchett-Stamford, who became life members and controlled the League's assets. The League acquired a property known as Sid Abbey and held a portfolio of investments. Activity within the League declined over time, and membership records ceased in the early 1990s. Mr Hanchett-Stamford died in 2006, leaving Mrs Hanchett-Stamford as the sole surviving member. She sought to transfer the League's assets to the Born Free Foundation, a registered charity, and issued proceedings for declarations concerning the charitable status of the League and the appointment of trustees.

The Attorney-General was the named Defendant, and Dr William Jordan, a life member, was joined as an additional Defendant. Advertisements were placed to identify members; Dr Jordan was the only respondent. A dispute arose regarding a legacy mistakenly paid to the Captive Animals Protection Trust, a breakaway organisation, which refused to return the funds. Barclays Bank, as trustee of the will, was joined to the proceedings to address this issue.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Is the League a charity?
2. If it is not, to whom do its assets belong?
3. If it is, what should happen to its assets?
4. Is Mrs Hanchett-Stamford fit to be a trustee of the League?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first examined whether the League was a charity. It applied the established three-part test for charitable trusts: charitable nature, promotion of recognized public benefit, and exclusively charitable purposes. While prevention of cruelty to animals is charitable, the League’s significant object was to change the law by banning performing animals, which courts have consistently held is not a charitable purpose. The court referenced key authorities establishing that trusts with law-changing purposes cannot be charitable because courts cannot assess whether the proposed legal change benefits the public and to avoid infringing on legislative functions.

The court rejected arguments that the League had become charitable due to changes in the law or social context, finding insufficient evidence that the League’s objectives had shifted away from law reform. It also rejected the contention that the League’s assets were held on charitable trusts arising from the Hanchett-Stamfords’ informal intention to transfer assets to a charity, due to lack of required formalities and evidence of an express trust or contract.

Turning to ownership of the League’s assets, the court applied principles governing unincorporated associations, concluding that assets belong beneficially to the members subject to contractual arrangements. The court rejected the view that assets vest as bona vacantia upon reduction to a single member, reasoning that such a result would be incompatible with contract law principles and the European Convention on Human Rights’ protection of possessions. The court found that the League ceased to exist upon Mr Hanchett-Stamford’s death, leaving Mrs Hanchett-Stamford as sole surviving member entitled to the assets free from contractual restrictions.

The court declined to interfere with the dispute between Barclays Bank and the Captive Animals Protection Trust, as it involved private law matters beyond the court’s power given the League’s non-charitable status.

Regarding Mrs Hanchett-Stamford’s fitness to act as trustee, the court noted she had recovered sufficient capacity to understand proceedings and, had a trust existed, she would have been suitable to act as co-trustee with her solicitor.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the declaration that the League is a charity and REFUSED to appoint trustees as sought by the Plaintiff. It held that the League was never a charity and did not become one, and that its assets belong beneficially to the sole surviving member, Mrs Hanchett-Stamford, free of any contractual restrictions. Consequently, she is entitled to deal with the assets, including transferring them to the Born Free Foundation if she chooses.

The decision directly affects the parties by confirming ownership of the League’s assets in the sole surviving member and denying the court’s power to impose charitable trusts or appoint trustees. No new precedent was established beyond the application and reaffirmation of existing principles concerning unincorporated associations and charitable trusts.