Advertisement

Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 63–71 | Cite as

Re Le Cren Clarke — Faith hope and charity in healing

  • Debra Morris
Case Notes
  • 45 Downloads

Keywords

Religious Service Public Benefit Faith Healing Charitable Trust Religious Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See, for example, A. Owen, “Surveying The Alternatives”,Nursing Times 6 (12 September 1995), 42–44. where the gradual integration of alternative therapies into the National Health Service is described.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Re Le Cren Clarke (deceased), Funnell v.Stewart [1996] 1 All E.R. 715.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    This involved the laying on of hands by those with the healing gift.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    These consisted of the saying of prayers and meditation.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    As it is seen as a gift, healing is often given free, but it is common for patients to be asked to donate some money to cover overheads.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The gift was named in honour of the original healer who had been involved with the movement, Miss Ruby Rolfe.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SeeMorice v.Bishop of Durham (1805) 10 Ves. Jun. 522.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The use of the words “I direct” provided cogent evidence of an intention to create a trust rather than an absolute gift.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    [1891] A.C. 531, 583.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Times, 24th May 1966.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    [1949] A.C. 426.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Compare the decision concerning the registration as a charity of the Society of the Precious Blood, a contemplative community of Anglican nuns centred on Burnham Abbey. The nuns counselled people in distress, assisted people interested in archaeology and held public religious services. See (1995) 3Ch. Comm. Dec. pp.11–17.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    [1996] 1 All E.R. 715, 722.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See, for example,Att.-Gen. v. Ross [1986] 1 W.L.R. 252, 262 where Scott J. said that there is no reason why a charitable student organisation (here, North London Polytechnic Students' Union) should not affiliate to a noncharitable organisation (here, the National Union of Students) if it enables it to further its own charitable activities.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    For example, a trust for charitable purposes may continue in perpetuity.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See, for example, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s.505.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See, for example,Re Pinion [1965] Ch. 85, 107, where, having taken expert advice concerning the educational value of the testator's “art collection”, Harman L.J.'s view was that there was no useful purpose in “foisting on the public this mass of junk”.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See for exampleGilmour v.Coats, discussedsupra at text with n.11.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neville Estates Ltd v.Madden [1962] Ch. 832, 853.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    [1973] 3 All E.R. 678.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See, for example,Re Resch's Will Trusts [1969] 1 A.C. 514, 540per Lord Wilberforce.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Commonly referred to as the Statute of Elizabeth I.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    [1923] 1 Ch. 237.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    [1975]Ch. Comm. Rep. para.69.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    [1975]Ch. Comm. Rep. para.70.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Supra n.23. [1923] 1 Ch. 237.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weir v.Crum-Brown [1908] A.C. 162, 167.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See, for example,Inland Revenue Commissioners v.McMullen [1981] A.C. 1.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goodman Committee,Charity Law and Voluntary Organisations, 1976, para.54.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Charities: A Framework for the Future, 1989, Cm 694.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Charities Act 1992. See now, Charities Act 1993 and Charities Act 1992, Parts II and III.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Charities: A Framework for the Future, 1989. Cm 694, para.2.25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deborah Charles Publications 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra Morris
    • 1
  1. 1.Charity Law UnitUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations