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.

v.

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.

1.

Introduction.

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