Key Facts
- •Claimant, Harrow School, sought a cy-près scheme to alter its charitable objects and a declaration confirming its power to amend objects under the Public Schools Act 1868.
- •The Attorney General opposed, arguing insufficient grounds for a cy-près occasion and limitations on amending the charity's main objects.
- •Harrow School's origins trace back to a 1572 Royal Charter establishing a grammar school in Harrow-on-the-Hill with specific objects.
- •Subsequent statutes (1591, 1871, 1874, 2016) modified governance but not the core charitable objects.
- •Claimant argued current objects (in Latin) are archaic, geographically restrictive, and hinder maximizing public benefit.
- •Claimant sought to remove geographical limitations and broaden its scope for educational advancement.
Legal Principles
Cy-près jurisdiction allows courts to alter a charity's purposes if the original purpose becomes impossible or impractical or other circumstances arise under the Charities Act 2011.
Court's inherent jurisdiction; Charities Act 2011, section 62
The court's scheme-making jurisdiction cannot conflict with Acts of Parliament or Royal Charters; it can only aid or supplement them.
Construction Industry Training Board v Attorney General [1973] Ch 173; In re Whitworth Art Gallery Trusts [1958] 1 Ch 461
A charity's property, even if held by a corporation, remains subject to its original charitable objects; transferring property does not eliminate the original trust or liability.
Liverpool and District Hospital for Diseases of the Heart v Attorney General [1981] Ch 193; Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v The Secretary for Justice [2015] HKCFA 35; Lehtimaki v Cooper [2022] AC 155
The Public Schools Act 1868 allows amendment of statutes relating to a school, but does not grant power to alter the fundamental objects set out in a Royal Charter.
Public Schools Act 1868, sections 7, 11
Outcomes
Claimant's application for a cy-près scheme was denied.
The court found no cy-près occasion under the Charities Act 2011. The claimant's arguments regarding surplus capacity in staff and brand were rejected as not representing legally identifiable surplus property. Furthermore, the Public Schools Act 1868 does not permit amending the core charitable objects established by the Royal Charter.