Re Shaw [1957]

• Facts:

◦ The testator allocated funds for the purpose of researching and creating a 40-letter alphabet.

◦ The question was whether this constituted a valid trust.

• Outcome:

◦ The court held that the trust was invalid because it lacked an identifiable beneficiary.

◦ Similar to Re Endacott, the trust failed as it was a non-charitable purpose trust with no enforceable obligations.

• Reasoning:

◦ Trusts must satisfy the beneficiary principle, which requires a clear, identifiable person or class of persons who can enforce the trust.

◦ Research for a 40-letter alphabet did not qualify as a charitable purpose under English law, nor did it have identifiable beneficiaries.

• Analysis and Impact:

◦ Purpose Trusts vs. Charitable Trusts:

▪ This case reiterates that non-charitable purpose trusts generally fail unless they meet the narrow exceptions recognised by law.

▪ The purpose in this case—researching a new alphabet—did not benefit the public in a way that would qualify it as charitable.

◦ Beneficiary Principle Reinforced:

▪ The decision highlights the strict enforcement of the beneficiary principle to ensure enforceability and proper administration of trusts.

◦ Comparison to Re Endacott:

▪ Like Re Endacott ("useful memorial"), the trust here failed because it was a vague purpose with no beneficiaries.

This case underscores the legal challenges of establishing non-charitable purpose trusts and affirms the importance of aligning trust purposes with either identifiable beneficiaries or recognised charitable objectives.