Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd 诉总检察长:法定 "贿赂 "原则的当代适用范围

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-04-11 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12887
John Picton
{"title":"Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd 诉总检察长:法定 \"贿赂 \"原则的当代适用范围","authors":"John Picton","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, the <jats:italic>cy‐près </jats:italic>doctrine required that, upon the substantive alteration of a charitable trust, the new purposes should be ‘as near as possible’ to the old. This is no longer the case. Subject to section 67(3) of the Charities Act 2011, the redrafting court or Charity Commission must have regard to factors other than proximity of purpose. <jats:italic>Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Attorney General</jats:italic> is the first high‐level authority to consider the meaning of the statute, and, with it, the scope of the contemporary statutory <jats:italic>cy‐près</jats:italic> doctrine. This note argues that the Court of Appeal read down the statutory factors conservatively, prioritising fidelity to the original objects of the trust. The note considers the method of the Court and suggests that a more creative approach might have been taken. Finally, the note considers the impact of the authority on the Charity Commission's routine, day‐to‐day<jats:italic> cy‐près </jats:italic>casework .","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd v Attorney General: the contemporary Scope of the Statutory Cy‐près Doctrine\",\"authors\":\"John Picton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Historically, the <jats:italic>cy‐près </jats:italic>doctrine required that, upon the substantive alteration of a charitable trust, the new purposes should be ‘as near as possible’ to the old. This is no longer the case. Subject to section 67(3) of the Charities Act 2011, the redrafting court or Charity Commission must have regard to factors other than proximity of purpose. <jats:italic>Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Attorney General</jats:italic> is the first high‐level authority to consider the meaning of the statute, and, with it, the scope of the contemporary statutory <jats:italic>cy‐près</jats:italic> doctrine. This note argues that the Court of Appeal read down the statutory factors conservatively, prioritising fidelity to the original objects of the trust. The note considers the method of the Court and suggests that a more creative approach might have been taken. Finally, the note considers the impact of the authority on the Charity Commission's routine, day‐to‐day<jats:italic> cy‐près </jats:italic>casework .\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12887\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12887","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从历史上看,"慈善信托原则 "要求在对慈善信托进行实质性修改时,新的目的应 "尽可能接近 "旧的目的。现在情况不再如此。在遵守 2011 年《慈善法》第 67(3)条的前提下,重新起草的法院或慈善委员会必须考虑目的接近性以外的因素。Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd v Attorney General 案是第一个考虑法规含义的高级别权威案件,同时也是考虑当代法定担保原则范围的案件。本说明认为,上诉法院保守地解读了法定因素,优先考虑忠实于信托的原始目的。本说明考虑了法院的方法,并提出本可以采取更具创造性的方法。最后,本说明考虑了该权威对慈善委员会日常慈善案件工作的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd v Attorney General: the contemporary Scope of the Statutory Cy‐près Doctrine
Historically, the cy‐près doctrine required that, upon the substantive alteration of a charitable trust, the new purposes should be ‘as near as possible’ to the old. This is no longer the case. Subject to section 67(3) of the Charities Act 2011, the redrafting court or Charity Commission must have regard to factors other than proximity of purpose. Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd v Attorney General is the first high‐level authority to consider the meaning of the statute, and, with it, the scope of the contemporary statutory cy‐près doctrine. This note argues that the Court of Appeal read down the statutory factors conservatively, prioritising fidelity to the original objects of the trust. The note considers the method of the Court and suggests that a more creative approach might have been taken. Finally, the note considers the impact of the authority on the Charity Commission's routine, day‐to‐day cy‐près casework .
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1