The Charities Act 2006 does not affect the charitable status of trusts for the relief of poor relatives or employees. Public benefit has two senses (the first concerning the beneficial nature of activities and the second regarding who is to benefit), but charities for the relief of poverty only have to be of public benefit in the first sense.

Upheld a gift to provide pensions for poor ex-employees.

Trusts for poor employees are charitable. Lord Cross’s dissent critiques the Oppenheim approach to public benefit as artificial.

Trust for the benefit of cloistered nuns not for the public benefit.

Charities for the advancement of religion require the public to be able to access the religion.

The ISC successfully challenged Commission guidance on the public benefit requirement for private schools.

The Commission had misinterpreted the existing law: as long as there is some level of financial support possible for poor students, the public benefit requirement should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both direct and indirect benefits.

Concerned the validity of Amnesty International as a charitable organization.

Political purposes are not allowed in charitable trusts but engaging in political activities to further a charitable purpose may be acceptable as ancillary non-charitable purposes.

A trust for the education of employees of British-American Tobacco held not to be charitable.

Apart from charities for the relief of poverty, a charitable trust will not be for the public benefit if it only benefits relatives or employees.

A trust for poor relations upheld as charitable.

Public benefit means for the benefit of the community or some section of it.

An Ethical Society was held not to be a charity for the advancement of religion.

‘Religion’ involves faith in a god and worship of a god (see also s 3(2)(a) CA 2011).