Re Lipinski [1976]

Testator left money to the Hull Judeans Association in
the memory of his late wife to be used for the construction /improvement of
Oliver J noted that gift to UA might, according to
words used, be construed in one of 3 ways:
i.  As a gift to
members of the UA at time of gift as joint tenants.
ii.  As a gift
to members of the UA at time of gift subject to their contractual rights and
liabilities towards one another as members.
iii.  Not as a gift to members of the UA at
time but to be held on trust for purposes of UA.
Under (i) any member can sever his joint share and
claim it.
Under (ii) member cannot
sever his share – accrues to other members on his death / resignation.
Under (iii) gift will fail (unless UA = charitable
Oliver J noted that as a purpose had been designated,
(i) was impossible.
Given the specifically designated purpose, is (ii)
Yes, provided the purpose is within powers of UA.
‘Where the donee body is itself the beneficiary of the
prescribed purpose, there seems to me to be the strongest reason in common
sense for saying that the gift should be an absolute one’
[So this case is an extreme eg of the contract-holding
theory – even though disposition intended to be a trust, it was construed as an
absolute gift.]