• In the case of IRC v Baddeley 1955 ac 572 585, it was found the social and physical wellbeing of the community or any part of it is a wealthy object of kindness and philanthropy, but its ambit is too wide to include only charitable purposes.

Facts of the Case

  • Trustees were directed to permit property to be used by a Methodist church for ‘religious services and instruction’ and for the ‘social and physical training and recreations’ of residents of West Ham and Leyton BCs members or those likely to become members.

Issues in IRC v Baddeley 1955 ac 572 585

  • Whether a stamp study was payable and whether the trust could attain charitable status.

Held by House of Lords

  • Trust failed: not charitable.

Viscount Simmons

  • Here the trust failed due to the vague and generalist approach taken.
  • Supposing that the trusts would be valid charitable trusts if the beneficiaries were the community at large or a section of the community defined by some geographical limits, the trusts could not qualify as a charity within the fourth class in Income Tax Commissioners v Pemsel if the beneficiaries were a class of persons not only confined to a particular area but selected from within it by reference to a particular creed; consequently, the appeal must be allowed.
  • “I think, therefore, that these words entitle the trustees to run a social centre in the ordinary sense for the Methodists and prospective Methodists as set out in the deed. On this view the trust, limited as it is, is plainly not a charity, and the Court of Appeal would as I read their judgments have so held. Had I been able to agree with the more charitable construction placed on the deeds by the Court of Appeal I should have felt great difficulty in reconciling their conclusion with the decision of this House in Williams’ Trustees v. Inland Revenue Commissioners.79 I am aware of the differences that could be emphasized, but on the whole I think the deed in Williams’ case was nearer the borderline than the present deeds. The Attorney-General as amicus curiae made certain submissions as to recreation grounds for the public and village halls. Nothing that I have said is to be taken as throwing any doubt or light on these matters. Where a ground or hall is for the public different considerations clearly arise. I would allow the appeals.” Pg 616