Suchergebnisse

This article examines the control framework for the supervision and oversight of charitable trusts in the common law world. It outlines in Section 1 the fundamental differences between private and public trusts that necessitate a separate enforcement regime for charitable trusts before exploring in Section 2 the historical and political powers and duties of the Attorney General as parens patriae of charities. In light of the limitations of the Attorney General's effective scrutiny, Section 3 considers the emergence of alternative charity regulators – from tax authorities to independent charity commissions – comparing the relative regulatory achievements of these agencies with that of the Attorney General (AG). Section 4 turns its attention to the role of the courts and tribunals in the enforcement of the interests of donors, beneficiaries and charitable entities. The article concludes in Section 5 with a discussion of the merits and demerits of the charitable trust vis-à-vis the public benefit foundation and explores whether civil law systems intent on adopting the trust need to rethink their enforcement options when it comes to charitable trust enforcement.

A Mareva injunction allows a claimant to freeze a defendant's assets pending litigation. The injunction regularly contains provisos for the defendant to be able to meet certain types of regular expenditure and meet legal costs. The defendant in United Mizrahi Bank was being sued for breach of trust: he was an employee of the bank who had allegedly arranged for customers to pay money to entities controlled by him. The bank obtained a Mareva injunction pending the hearing of its claim for the return of the moneys obtained through this breach of trust. The claim was proprietary in nature. The bank could "trace" its ownership of the funds into the hands of the defendant and his associates.
The defendant sought declarations from the English High Court that by using some of the frozen assets to fund his legal expenses in defending the action, he would not be in breach of the Mareva injunction, and that if the claim against him was upheld, the expenditure of money on legal services would not be regarded as a further breach of trust. In relation to the first point, Rattee J held that the Mareva injunction contained a specific proviso for legal expenses, and therefore the use of assets for this purpose could not be a breach of the injunction. In relation to the second point, Michael Burton QC was unable to provide reassurance. Although the defendant would not be in breach of the Mareva injunction by using the disputed assets to fund his defence, it was possible that the assets would be found to be the property of the bank. If they passed into new hands - in casu those of the defendant's solicitors - there was a risk that those solicitors might also be made subject to a claim for their return.

Marking the 2020 centenary of his death, this book explores the judicial legacy of chief baron Christopher Palles, the last chief baron of the Court of Exchequer Ireland, in a judicial career spanning over 40 years from 1874 to 1916. It brings together legal scholars, legal historians and social historians to critically analyse the impact of a leading figure in the development of Irish law and society in the late nineteenth century across a range of fields including land law, tort law, administrative and company law, charity law, criminal and civil procedure. In the first scholarly assessment of its kind, this collection examines Palles' contribution through his most enduring legacy -- his written judgments -- and tracks the global and lasting influence of those decisions in subsequent cases and contemporary legal scholarship throughout the common law world

This article explores both state-based regulation and self-regulation, shared narratives, and lessons to better understand the interaction of these two forms of regulation in the nonprofit space. "The Context" section outlines six preliminary research questions that inform the work. "The Framework" section then outlines the regulatory framework, focusing on various regulatory motivations, before "The Findings" section turns to country findings. In unpacking some of the major findings, we look first at state perspectives on the role of regulation before considering the sector's perspective. Taking both on board enables us to configure the relationship spectrum between state and sector when it comes to regulation and to begin to identify, based on the 16 case studies undertaken, the most common triggers for regulatory change identified therein and to reframe them through the development of a series of five regulatory propositions and seven environmental variables to help understand how different forms of regulation are triggered and interact.

"All governments, in various ways, regulate and control nonprofit organizations. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), while hopeful of supportive regulatory environments, are simultaneously seeking greater autonomy both to provide services and to advocate for policy change. In part to counter increasing statutory regulation, there is a global nonprofit sector movement towards greater grassroots regulation - what the authors call self-regulation - through codes of conduct and self-accreditation processes. This book drills down to the country level to examine both sides of this equation, examining how state regulation and nonprofit self-regulation affect each other and investigating the causal nature of this interaction. Exploring these issues from historical, cultural, political, and environmental perspectives, and in sixteen jurisdictions (Australia, China, Brazil, Ecuador, England and Wales, Ethiopia, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda, Scotland, United States, and Vietnam) the authors analyse the interplay between state control and nonprofit self-regulation to better understand broader emerging trends"--