Animal Trust? Whether animal can be the beneficiaries of a trust or not.

Actually, a gift for specific animal or animals may constitute a valid non-charitable trust. On the other hand, trust for animals generally could be charitable if we look in the case of Re Wedgewood [1915] 1 Ch 113, the court held that trust for animals generally could be charitable,  principally because they “tend to promote and encourage kindness…and …stimulate humane and generous sentiments I man towards the lower animals, and by this means…promote feelings of humanity and morality generally, repress brutality, and thus elevate human race”. Besides, a trust for the maintenance of animals generally may qualify as a charitable trust, but trusts for the maintenance of a specific animal or animals may be valid purposed trusts. Specific animals include a cat, dog or horse. Furthermore, if we look into the three cases of Re Doughlas (1887) 35 Ch D 472, Re Moss [1949] 1 All ER 495 & Re Murawski Will Trust [1971] 1 WLR 707, the followings trust have been held to be charitable: for a home lost dogs, for the welfare of cats, an for protection of animals from ill-usages, cruelty and suffering. In order to be valid, the trust must either lead to the relieving of suffering of animals or its must not restrict access to public to view the animals.

Meanwhile, in the case of Murdoch v AG (Tasmania) (1992) 1 Tas R 117, SC (Tas), Zeman J explained “…a gift for the benefit of animals is not charitable per se. Something more, by way of a benefit to the community, is required. If the object of the gift is to prevent cruelty t animals such a benefit of animals would readily be perceive…Certain things which might be done for the benefit of animals are of no benefit to the community and may even be contrary to the best interests of the community. It is not enough to say that some things done for the benefit of animals will be for the benefit of the community”.

Importance to says, in the case of Re Grove-Grady [1929] 1 Ch 557, which the decision of this case will not be followed today is about a gift to a society to provide refuge to animals and birds free from human molestation. The English Court of Appeal held that the trust failed as it was not in the public benefit.

So, from the above case especially in Murdoch v AG & Re Grove-Grady, we can see in per se. that the court had depress that the charitable trust for animals must gives or brings the public benefit to the society. But, we must notice that there are still in certain circumstances that the trust to animal or animals can be a valid trust.

So, like I said before, a gift for specific animal or animals may constitute a valid non-charitable trust, but on the other hand, trust for animals generally could be charitable because there still an exception we can found in non-charitable trust, the exception follow the Common Law and also has been accepted in Malaysia. So, in easy words  there are certain circumstances that the trust for the animal can be valid although it doesn’t give the benefit to the human. There are the maintenance of specific animals, tombs and monuments and trust for the purpose of Chinese ancestors pray. In the case of Pettingal v Pettingal (1842) 11 LJ Ch 176 , the court held the trust is a valid where the one of the trust includes the gift£50 per annum to maintain the testators’s  favourite black mare. Besides, a lot of cases like in for the upkeep of the testator’s horses in Milford v Reynold (1848) 16 Sim 105, specific cats in Re Haines (1952) The Times , November 7, and an annuity £750 for the upkeep of the testator’s horses and hounds for a period of 50 years in Re Dean (1889) 41 Ch D 552. The last case “has been accepted as authority are valid for the perpetuity period; and its believed that this exception to the general rule has been relied on countless cases since Re Dean...:>End.