Re Resch's Will Trusts
A private hospital that charged fees was charitable, because it provided a benefit to the public, and it was not run for profit.
Facts
A testator left money for a private hospital in Sydney, run by the Sisters of Charity, which charged fees to patients. The hospital was not run for profit, and its income was used to run and improve it. The question was whether the gift was charitable, given that the hospital served only those who could pay its fees.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the gift was charitable. Lord Wilberforce said that the provision of medical care for the sick is a purpose beneficial to the community, and that a hospital is not prevented from being charitable because it charges fees, as long as it is not run for profit. The hospital benefited the public generally, by relieving pressure on public hospitals and by offering a type of care that was needed. The poor were not entirely excluded, because it was not shown that only the wealthy could use it.
Related cases on charitable trusts
- Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance Inc v Simpson [1944] AC 341
- Re Compton [1945] Ch 123
- Dingle v Turner [1972] AC 601
- Re Finger's Will Trusts [1972] Ch 286
- Gilmour v Coats [1949] AC 426
- Re Harwood [1936] Ch 285
- Re Hetherington [1990] Ch 1
- Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] AC 531
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
