Dean v Burne & Ors

Dean v Burne & Ors

On the true construction of clause 4 of the Parish and Diocesan trust deeds, the successor provisions are only triggered where there is a genuine and reasonable doubt as to the continuity of the life of the Parish/Diocese or the identity of the beneficiary body. Mere schism, differences in religious practice, or changes in allegiance do not suffice. On the evidence, no such doubt existed at the relevant time; the Parish and Diocese continued as identifiable entities. Therefore, the disputed resolutions were invalid and of no effect.

Parties
Claimant: Adrian Gordon Dean; Defendant: Patience Burne; Defendant: Patricia Fostiropoulos; Defendant: Deborah Honore; Defendant: Her Majesty’s Attorney-General; Defendant: Bishop Basil Osborne of Amphipolis; Defendant: Ruth Nares; Defendant: Xenia Bowlby; Defendant: Nathalie Brooke; Defendant: Edwin Roberson; Defendant: Elizabeth von Schlippe; Defendant: Jane Moura Collingridge; Defendant: Mariam Rahim; Defendant: Sophia Myrtle Olive Tanner; Defendant: Hannah Mary Torrance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (charity/trusts) / Judgment After Trial of Consolidated Part 8 Claims
Outcome
Claim allowed; disputed resolutions declared invalid and of no effect.
Legal Topics
Construction of Trust Deeds, Successor Provisions in Religious Charities, Cy Près Schemes, Religious Schism and Property, Role of Attorney General in Charity Proceedings
Charity Law Trusts Ecclesiastical Law Construction of Trust Deeds Successor Provisions in Religious Charities Cy Près Schemes Religious Schism and Property Role of Attorney General in Charity Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Gordon Dean

Claimant

Patience Burne

Defendant

Patricia Fostiropoulos

Defendant

Deborah Honore

Defendant

Her Majesty’s Attorney-General

Defendant

Bishop Basil Osborne of Amphipolis

Defendant

Ruth Nares

Defendant

Xenia Bowlby

Defendant

Nathalie Brooke

Defendant

Edwin Roberson

Defendant

Elizabeth von Schlippe

Defendant

Jane Moura Collingridge

Defendant

Mariam Rahim

Defendant

Sophia Myrtle Olive Tanner

Defendant

Hannah Mary Torrance

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (charity/trusts) / Judgment After Trial of Consolidated Part 8 Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed resolutions under clause 4 of the Parish and Diocesan trust deeds were validly passed and effective to transfer assets to successor bodies under the Ecumenical Patriarchate;
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances justified the making of a cy-près scheme under section 13 of the Charities Act 1993;
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'doubt' and 'successor' provisions in the trust deeds.

Ratio Decidendi

On the true construction of clause 4 of the Parish and Diocesan trust deeds, the successor provisions are only triggered where there is a genuine and reasonable doubt as to the continuity of the life of the Parish/Diocese or the identity of the beneficiary body. Mere schism, differences in religious practice, or changes in allegiance do not suffice. On the evidence, no such doubt existed at the relevant time; the Parish and Diocese continued as identifiable entities. Therefore, the disputed resolutions were invalid and of no effect.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; disputed resolutions declared invalid and of no effect.

Orders

  • Declarations that the Parish and Diocese remained the sole beneficiaries under the respective trust deeds.
  • Declarations that the disputed resolutions were invalid and of no effect.