Home » Coats » Gilmour V Coates 1949 Ac 426

Gilmour V Coates 1949 Ac 426

06/04/2019 Gilmour v Coats : HL 1949.

References: [ 1949 ] AC 426 , [ 1949 ] UKHL 1, [ 1949 ] 1 All ER 848.

(Bailii, [1953] UKHL 1, [1953] AC 380) The House was asked whether the taxpayer association was established for #Charitable purposes only# so as to benefit from tax exemptions.

The association promoted sporting activities among members of the Glasgow.

Gilmour v Coats [ 1949 ] AC 426.

Nuns praying for the people was not considered to be a charitable purpose because they are living away from the public and do not make any public benefit.

HoL took the view that there had to be a demonstrable public benefit.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply.


coats and others 8th April, 1949.

LordSimonds Lord duParcq LordNormand Lord Morton ofHenryton Lord Reid Lord Simonds MY LORDS, The Appellant, Ethel Gilmour , is the present Prioress of the CarmelitePriory of St.

Charles’ Square, Notting Hill, London.

28/11/2016 In a guest post, Robert Meakin of Stone King LLP reassesses one of the leading cases on public benefit and the advancement of religion.



This article revisits the case of Gilmour v Coats [ 1949 ] AC 426 , [ 1949 ] UKHL 1.

It is a timely moment to revisit the case because there is doubt about the requirement of public benefit for charities with purposes to advance religion.

Gilmour v Coats [ 1949 ] AC 426.

Facts: Money was settled on trust for the purpose of supporting a community of cloistered nuns.

Held: It was held that the trust#s purpose fell within the category of advancement of religion, but the purpose was not held beneficial and so was not charitable;.

Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading.

You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.

Read the guide gilmour v coates 1949 ac 426