Re Thompson [1934]

• Facts:

◦ A trust was established for the promotion of fox hunting.

◦ The court was asked to consider whether this constituted a valid trust, given the problematic nature of purpose trusts, particularly non-charitable ones.

• Outcome:

◦ The court granted a Pettingall order, which allowed the trust to continue despite being for a non-charitable purpose (fox hunting).

◦ The judge effectively validated what would otherwise have been an invalid purpose trust.

◦ The use of the Pettingall order meant that the trust was allowed to function, but it was an anomalous ruling for a non-charitable purpose trust.

• Impact and Analysis:

◦ Pettingall Order:

▪ This order is typically used to validate non-charitable purpose trusts by allowing trustees to carry out the purpose without necessarily having identifiable beneficiaries.

▪ While the order allowed the trust to proceed, it was seen as an exceptional and not a widely applicable approach.

◦ Criticism of Purpose Trusts:

▪ The case illustrates the challenges in dealing with non-charitable purpose trusts, which often lack identifiable beneficiaries and can be difficult to enforce.

▪ Harman J in Re Endacott:

▪ Criticised such purpose trusts as "troublesome, anomalous, and aberrant", reflecting the legal difficulties they pose.

▪ Purpose trusts that do not benefit a defined group or public cause are often seen as problematic under traditional trust law principles.

◦ Not Good Authority:

▪ Re Thompson is not considered strong authority for purpose trusts as it relies on the Pettingall order, a procedural tool to allow certain non-charitable purpose trusts to function, despite the general invalidity of such trusts.

▪ This makes the case an outlier rather than a precedent-setting decision.

This case highlights the complexities and legal uncertainties surrounding non-charitable purpose trusts and the court’s efforts to navigate these issues, but it is not a widely followed authority due to its reliance on an exceptional legal remedy.