Conservative Central Office v Burrell 1982

• Facts:

◦ The case involved whether the Conservative Party could be considered an unincorporated association (UA) in the context of donations and the management of party property.

◦ The issue arose from the donations made by contributors to the party and whether the relationship between the party and its members or contributors could be understood as an unincorporated association.

• Outcome:

◦ The court concluded that the Conservative Party was not an unincorporated association because there was no contract that connected the different limbs or parts of the party’s structure, nor was there an agreement binding the contributors together in a way that would fit the definition of an unincorporated association.

◦ Brightman J emphasised that donations to political parties could be viewed differently from those made to unincorporated associations. Specifically, he proposed that the vesting of power in a treasurer to use the donated property for party purposes was a matter of personal agency, not a purpose trust or a UA relationship.

• Impact and Analysis:

◦ Unincorporated Associations and Political Parties:

▪ This case clarified that not all organisations, particularly political parties, can be treated as unincorporated associations simply because they receive donations or have a group of contributors.

▪ The Conservative Party was found not to fulfil the criteria of an unincorporated association, highlighting the importance of contractual relationships and the lack of binding agreements between party members or donors.

◦ Agency Law and Donations:

▪ Brightman J’s reasoning focused on the idea that donations to political parties created a personal agency relationship between the contributors and the treasurer of the party.

▪ This meant that the treasurer had a fiduciary duty to use the donated property in line with the party’s purposes, and if this duty was breached, the contributors could potentially sue under agency law.

▪ The court recognised that donors might not have a direct claim over the property in a typical trust sense but had a legal right to ensure that the treasurer acted in the party’s interest and in line with the purpose for which the donations were made.

• Key Takeaway:

◦ Conservative Central Office v Burrell is significant in that it established that political parties, like the Conservative Party, are not automatically treated as unincorporated associations for legal purposes.

◦ The case also provided clarity on how donations to political organisations are handled, viewing them through the lens of agency law rather than as part of a trust or association.

◦ Donors to political parties, under this reasoning, are seen as having the right to enforce the proper use of their contributions based on the personal agency relationship rather than the legal structure of an unincorporated association.