Jatlerrr (Offline)

Hi,

The first thing to mention is that the "commercial field" is very broad. City corporate lawyers working long hours on large mergers and acquisitions, real estate lawyers who work on large transactions, people who work for smaller and medium sized businesses, dispute lawyers (i.e. litigators) and tax specialists are all in the field. You also need to remember that larger firms have multiple departments - for example, a firm with a family department might also have a corporate department.

I am at a high-pressure 'magic circle' corporate firm where I work on high-profile transactions to tight deadlines. The advantage is that the transactions are significant and I get paid very well. The disadvantages are very long and unpredictable hours, also some of the work for junior lawyers can be quite mundane on very large transactions. Someone working at a smaller commercial firm would have a different experience - they wouldn't get paid so well but would have better hours, and might have more responsibility for the matters they are working on because the matters are smaller and involve smaller teams.

Family is a lot more specific. I don't know a lot about it.

Best

Haven't done land for a year but off the top of my head, it looks like there's an easement point. It's either S.62 or the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows which you want to consider.

I'm so sorry! I meant to reply to you and it completely slipped my mind! Sorry, I'm so busy these days that I forget most things I need to do (including phoning my own mother. Oops)

Anyhow, I *think*:

i) The issue here is relief of poverty. I'd consider the fact that in placing it solely for millionaires, you exclude the poor and as per Warren J, a charity which excludes the poor cannot be charitable.

ii) The issue is failure ab initio - is there a sufficient general charitable intention for the money to be applied cy-pres?

iii) If this is a charity then you need to see if the charitable purpose is valid. If the purpose is political (as the case with the A-V Soc was) then it's not and the gift fails. If it's not a charity, you need to consider if contract-holding theory or Re Denley can apply or even the principle in AG v Leahy.