National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC
[1948] AC 31
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A trust whose main purpose is to change the law cannot be charitable because the court cannot determine whether the proposed change would be for the public benefit. Additionally, a purpose may not be charitable if its detriment (to medical research) outweighs its benefit.
Facts
The National Anti-Vivisection Society sought charitable status. Its main object was the total abolition of vivisection, which would require legislative change. The Crown argued it was not charitable.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords held the society was not charitable for two reasons: first, its main purpose was political (seeking a change in the law) which courts cannot evaluate for public benefit; second, even if the object were charitable, the detriment to medical research outweighed any benefit to animals.
Key Quotes
"The court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit, and therefore cannot say that a trust for securing such a change is a charitable trust."
— Lord Simonds
Subsequent Treatment
Remains authority on the exclusion of political purposes from charity, though modified by the Charities Act 2011 regarding ancillary political activity.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help