World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell

Article Id: WHEBN0035024564
Reproduction Date:

Title: Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Voluntary association, History of the Conservative Party (UK), Associations in English law
Collection: 1981 in British Law, 1981 in Case Law, Court of Appeal of England and Wales Cases, English Trusts Case Law, History of the Conservative Party (Uk)
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell
Citation(s) [1981] EWCA Civ 2, [1982] 1 WLR 522
Keywords
Associations, resulting trust, contract holding

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell [1981] EWCA Civ 2 is an English trusts law case, concerning the policy of the "beneficiary principle" and unincorporated associations.

Facts

The Inland Revenue argued that the Tory party should pay corporation tax under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 section 526, because members’ contributions took effect as an accretion to the funds, the subject matter of a contract, which safeguarded what happened with the members’ funds.

Vinelott J [1980] 3 All ER 42 held that each contributor enters a contract with the treasurer, who undertakes to use the subscription for the association’s purposes. Breach would mean liability in contract.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held there was no contract which connected the various limbs of the Conservative Party, and the various members, so the Re Recher analysis could not apply. Brightman LJ said donations to parties give a mandate or authority as an agent to the party treasurer to add the party’s funds. This must be used for party purposes. The mandate becomes irrevocable, but the contributor has a remedy to restrain misapplication of money unless his own contribution had been spent already (judged by ordinary accounting principles). It was accepted that the same kind of reasoning (whether contract or agency) could not apply for a dead person, although a dead person could authorise personal representatives to do so.

[[Lawton

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.