| 词条 | Hanchett-Stamford v A-G |
| 释义 |
| name = Hanchett‐Stamford v Attorney‐General | court = High Court | image = File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg | caption = | date decided = | full name = | citations = [2008] EWHC 330 (Ch), [2009] Ch 173 | judges = Lewison J | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Contract, unincorporated association, beneficiary principle }}{{Cite bailii|litigants=Hanchett‐Stamford v Attorney‐General|year=2008|court=EWHC|division=Ch|num=330}} is an English trusts law case, concerning the destination of property that is held by unincorporated associations when they wind up. The High Court applied the view that money is held according to the terms of the association contract while the association exists, and when the association ends any surplus funds go to the member of the association. FactsThe Performing and Captive Animals Defence League was founded as an unincorporated association in 1914, with the purpose of banning animals performing. It was decided the league had no charitable status in 1949, after National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC, because it was meant to change the law. Mr and Mrs Hanchett-Stamford joined as life members in the mid 1960s; he died in 2006 and she was the sole surviving member of the society. She decided to wind up and give the money to an active animal charity, seeking a declaration that the work and objects of the league were charitable under the Charities Act 2006 section 2(2)(k) and appointed herself and her solicitor as trustees of the fund, or just take the money herself.[1] JudgmentLewison J held the society was not charitable within the legal definition. However, he held that on her husband’s death the league ceased to exist, the rules ceased to bind her, and she was absolutely entitled to the assets as the sole surviving member. He held there was no need, in fact, to invoke a new form of co-ownership.[2] The donor transfers property to the members beneficially, but the property is received by the members as group property, as an accretion to an association’s funds. This means its use is to be governed by contract. That removes the risk that members decide to sever their share. See also{{Clist trust certainty}}
Notes1. ^See C Mitchell, Hayton and Mitchell's Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies (13th edn Sweet & Maxwell 2010) 237 and 590 2. ^[2009] Ch 173, at [47] ReferencesExternal links 4 : English trusts case law|High Court of Justice cases|2008 in case law|2008 in British law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。