In the instant case it is, we think, impossible for a number of reasons to regard the disposition as effectively making a gift collectively to the existing members of The Communist Party of Australia at the time of the testator's death. In form, the gift is to The Communist Party of Australia for its sole use and benefit and, there being nothing to show that the testator knew that that organization was not a legal entity, this provides some, albeit slight, indication that he did not intend to make such an immediate gift. Indeed, it is reasonable to suppose that the testator was unaware of the difficulties which would be occasioned by the fact that, in truth, the designated beneficiary was an unincorporated body. When there is added to the form in which the disposition is made the fact that The Communist Party had an extensive membership throughout Australia and that its membership seems to have been subject to very substantial fluctuation from time to time the additional difficulty arises of regarding the disposition as a gift to those individuals throughout Australia who should happen to be members of the organization at the time of his death. Some indication of the extent of the membership of the Party and the fluctuations in membership may be gathered from the evidence although it dealt primarily only with changes in the membership during a period of less than two years after the testator's death. To the best of the defendants' knowledge - exact records not having been kept at the office of the Central Committee - the number of members of the Party in Australia at the testator's death was some 5,274 of whom 2,515 were residents of New South Wales, 1,375 residents of Victoria, 826 residents of Queensland, 295 residents of South Australia, 194 residents of Western Australia, 51 residents of Tasmania and 18 residents of the Northern Territory. Of the total number specified 420 ceased to be members by the end of 1965 by reason of resignation, death or expulsion and, in the same period, 776 persons became members. Further, we think, upon consideration of the 1961 constitution of the Party - which, so far as we can see, is entirely silent concerning property of the Party or its transmission - it is impossible to say that at the time when the bequest, if effective, became operative the members of the Party had any, or any practical, capacity to put an end to their association and to distribute its assets. In our view, the observations made in In re Macaulay's Estate [1] , which were cited and commented upon by Viscount Simonds in Leahy's Case [2] , and the reasons for the decision in the last-mentioned case, lead to the conclusion that the cumulative effect of these considerations compel us to dismiss the appeal. In our view, it would be quite artificial to hold that the bequest operated as a bequest beneficially to the existing members of The Communist Party of Australia and we are satisfied that the correct conclusion is that it was a bequest to the members, both present and future, in trust for the purposes of the Party. That being so the bequest was void and, accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.