This is an extract of our Unincorporated Associations Framework document, which we sell as part of our Trusts and Equity Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Trusts and Equity Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Unincorporated Associations Framework
1. Is it UA?
i. Stipulated expressly in the problem ? conclusive ii. Not stipulated ? ask a) Owned by individual/company = legal personality (company law) b) 2 or more persons bound together for one or more common purposes w/mutual rights & obligations in an organisation which has rules governing the use of property, and which can be joined/left at will (Lawton LJ in Burrell) = UA
2. Has it dissolved + when?
? Assets can only be distributed if dissolved!
Do facts put together carry sufficient conviction that association is at an end & not merely dormant?
i. not dissolved just b/c impractical to operate (ReWilliams Delby Sick Fund) ii. need positive acts + inactivity (mere inactivity will suffice where it's prolonged) (ReGNKSportsClub)
4 ways in which can dissolve (Brightman J) (i) In acc. w/rules (ii) By agreement of all interested persons (iii) Court order (iv) Substratum upon which it was founded has gone (i.e. purpose no longer effective)
? watch out for ambiguity in purpose - e.g. to reduce noise in the airport: depends on whether a particular airport (which has closed, hence purpose no longer effective) or any airport
Only one person left = dissolved b/c can't associate w/himself ? assets are divided as follows: (i) Originally, bona vacantia (ReBucks) (ii) Currently - to remaining members b/c contract governing the use of property no longer operative, hence can severe their share (Hanchett Stamford v AG)
Date of dissolution - if unclear, court must pick a reasonable date
? If result in the end is unfair, try tweaking it
? If few possibilities, analyse all
3. Has each donation been made validly?
? Important b/c determines whether goes back on RT or can be divided amongst members in acc. w/rules
UA can't own payments made b/c not a legal person ? must construe as one of the following (Leahy v AG of New South Wales) (i) A gift to existing members beneficially
? Problematic b/c each can severe their share immediately, contravening donor's intent (ii) A gift to existing & future members beneficially
? Likely to fail b/c of perpetuity (iii) Absolute gift to members ( usually, for one (Treasurer) to hold on trust for others ? b/c easier + rules limiting no of people who can hold certain types of interests; e.g. s ? LPA 1925) which takes effect as accretion to existing funds under contract
? Requirements i) Beneficial transfer ii) Existence of contract governing the holding/use of property
? If transfer is made w/some qualification as to use (e.g. to LawSoc for purposes of mooting ? ReLipinski
? Theoretical problems i) ensuring Treasurer holds on self-imposed trust ? depends on contract governing the use & holding of property
? Downside - donor doesn't have much impact ii) formalities - disposition of equitable interest when old members leave & new join
? Penner - implied contractual right for Treasurer to vary membership - add
& take away iii) shifting membership iv) contract "binds" property - not theoretically possible
? argue members are bound by contract in their use of property instead?
v) members can waive/vary the contract by agreement (iv) Purpose trust w/ascertainable beneficiaries (ReBowes type trust as used in ReLipinski)
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Trusts and Equity Notes.