Explain how the courts have interpreted a gift to an unincorporated association and outline the problems associated with them.

Introduction: explain that a trust usually needs a human beneficiary perhaps mention Morice v Bishop of Durham. There are exceptions, including the anomalous exceptions which will not be extended. Then briefly explain what an unincorporated association is and the problems.

Identify the problems of the group of people holding property and the categories set out in Re Rechers.

If the transfer is for a pure purpose then this should fail. Linking to the existing categories identified in the introduction.

Hold as joint tenants or tenants in common. This is a gift, so no issue of perpetuity. Problems arise in this that may defeat the intention of the settlor. Each member can take their share but is this the true intention of the settlor/donor.

Hold on trust by the current members for current and future members. Here the beneficiaries are ascertainable so no issue with certainty. However, there are problems with remoteness of vesting. It should be linked to the perpetuity period. Explain this and as this is remoteness of vesting the Perpetuity and Accumulations Act will apply, unlike other area where it is the rule on inalienability.

This may achieve the aims of the settlor but it will vest in the current and future members and can be ended by them, once they are ascertained.

It is a gift to the current members subject to their contractual obligations within the association. They must be in control of their own finances and independent of an outside controlling body. This is a good interpretation but the settlor's wishes may be defeated as they are the owners of the property and can do what they wish with it. No problems with perpetuity as it vests immediately in the current members.

Alternatively explain that it could be a Re Denley type trust. Explain what this is; a trust with people who can 'police' the gift. Explain how the beneficiary principle usually requires a human beneficiary. You could consider the correct test to identify the beneficiaries, arguably it is the same as for discretionary trusts. Explain how Goff J thought he had avoided this problem. Mention that this was not actually about an unincorporated association.

Leads to a discussion of Re Lipinski and the confused judgment which seems to link the contractual analysis with the Re Denley trust.

The essay requires an explanation. It is mainly descriptive with just an outline of the problems.