Charitable and Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts UK: Denley, Quistclose and Beyond

Updated 31 May 2026 · 9 min read · Trust Law & Will Drafting

English trust law is built on the beneficiary principle: a trust must have identifiable beneficiaries who can enforce it. A trust for an abstract purpose — with no human beneficiary to go to court — is generally void. Yet two recognised exceptions — the Re Denley principle and Quistclose trusts — create valid purpose-like trusts in limited circumstances, with important implications for will drafting.

The Beneficiary Principle and Why Purpose Trusts Fail

The foundational rule was stated in Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804] 9 Ves 399: “There must be somebody in whose favour the court can decree performance.” A pure purpose trust — “to promote kindness to animals”, “to build a monument to the testator”, “to maintain the family home in perpetuity” — has no legal beneficiary. If the trustees misapply the fund, no one can sue to compel performance. For this reason, courts have consistently held such trusts void, with the trust property falling back on the estate by resulting trust.

The exception is charitable trusts. A trust for exclusively charitable purposes is enforced by the Attorney General (acting through the Charity Commission) — the “public benefit” fulfils the enforcement role of a private beneficiary. A non-charitable purpose trust lacks that enforcement mechanism entirely.

The Re Denley Exception: Purpose Trusts for Persons

Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373 introduced an important qualification. A sports ground was settled in trust “for the use and enjoyment of the employees of Holt & Co.” The trustees later applied to the court for direction. Goff J held the trust valid: although expressed as a purpose, it in substance created enforceable rights in identifiable persons (the employees), who could go to court to compel the trustees to maintain the ground for their benefit.

The Re Denley principle is that a trust expressed as a purpose is valid where:

• The purpose is not abstract but directly and tangibly benefits identifiable persons.
• Those persons have a sufficient interest to enforce the trust in court.
• The purpose is sufficiently certain and is not void for uncertainty.
• The trust does not infringe the rule against perpetuities.

Where the purpose benefits the public generally, or an abstract class, Re Denley does not save it. The identifiable persons must have a direct, personal, legally cognisable interest in the performance of the purpose — not merely an incidental benefit.

Quistclose Trusts: Commercial Purpose Trusts

The Quistclose trust (Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567) operates differently. Where money is advanced for a specific, defined purpose and is to be held separately from the recipient’s general assets until applied for that purpose, the money is held on trust — first for the purpose, and on resulting trust for the lender if the purpose fails.

The distinctive feature is that the Quistclose trust does not require a human beneficiary in the Re Denley sense: it creates a trust for a purpose (paying the dividend) that is valid because:

• The lender retains a beneficial interest as the residual beneficiary if the purpose fails.
• The purpose is contractually defined and commercially certain.
• The separation of the fund from general assets establishes the trust beyond doubt.

Quistclose trusts are most relevant in commercial and insolvency law but can also arise in estate administration — for example, where a legatee receives funds “only to be used for the purpose of purchasing [a specific property]”, or in solicitor client account contexts where estate funds are advanced for a defined transactional purpose.

Anomalous Valid Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts

English courts have grudgingly upheld a handful of non-charitable purpose trusts as anomalous exceptions — not because they satisfy the beneficiary principle, but because the contrary would be unjust and there is a long line of authority supporting them:

1. Maintenance of the Testator’s Grave or Tomb

A legacy for the care and upkeep of the testator’s grave or private burial ground is valid — upheld in cases including Re Hooper [1932]. But it must be limited to the perpetuity period (now 125 years under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009). Any sum directed to be held for grave maintenance in perpetuity is void to the extent it exceeds the perpetuity period; any excess falls into residue.

2. Care of the Testator’s Specific Animals

A legacy for the care of specific, named animals belonging to the testator — upheld in Re Dean (1889) — is valid during those animals’ lives, subject to the perpetuity period. A generic trust “for all animals generally” would be void (too abstract) or might qualify as charitable (under the advancement of animal welfare head).

3. Private Monuments and Memorials

A trust for the maintenance of a private non-charitable monument (a family chapel, a private war memorial not otherwise charitable) can be valid within the perpetuity period. A public memorial or war memorial with broad community benefit may now qualify as charitable under the Charities Act 2011.

Will Drafting Implications

These principles have direct practical consequences for will writers:

• Grave maintenance legacies — valid but must be capped in time and amount; state the sum, the trustee, and that any surplus at the end of the perpetuity period passes to residue.
• Charitable gifts — always name a registered charity or use clear charitable language within the four heads of charity. A gift “for environmental purposes” without a named charity is likely void.
• Mixing purposes — never combine charitable and non-charitable purposes in a single gift; the whole gift may fail.
• Condition-based gifts — conditions that require performance of a non-charitable purpose as a condition precedent may make the gift void. Seek advice if attaching purpose conditions to a substantial legacy.
• Denley-style gifts — a gift “to the trustees of the village hall for the benefit of the village hall committee members” may be valid under Re Denley; a gift “to promote the welfare of the village generally” almost certainly is not (unless it falls within a charitable head).

FAQs