TAN AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET JOY LANGTON BRITTON -v- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2025] WASC 242 (19 June 2025)

1. Christian Growth Ministries Inc was incorrectly named in the Will. Its correct name was Concerned Christians Growth Ministries Inc (CCGM) However, CCGM was dissolved on 6 August 2013.[3]

By originating summons filed on 24 February 2025, the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to the Charitable Trusts Act 2022 (WA) (Act) for approval of a proposed scheme to substitute Perth Bible College Inc (PBC) for CCGM as the beneficiary of one of the shares of the residue of Margaret's estate pursuant to cl 8 of the Will, as varied (Scheme).

1. The application is supported by affidavits sworn by the plaintiff on:

(a) 21 February 2025, filed on 24 February 2025 and re-filed with the attachments on 17 June 2025 (Tan February 2025 Affidavit);

(b) 9 May 2025 (Tan May 2025 Affidavit), which attaches copies of notices published in the West Australian newspaper and in the PBC's newsletter pursuant to orders made on 10 April 2025; and

(c) 18 June 2025, attaching a copy of the summary of facts provided to the defendant (Tan June 2025 Affidavit).

1. I have also been assisted by submissions filed by the plaintiff and the State Solicitor's Office on behalf of the defendant, the Attorney General of Western Australia, in support of the application to approve the Scheme.
2. Before considering the Scheme, I will outline the relevant provisions of the Act.

Charitable Trusts Act 2022 (WA)

1. Section 10 of the Act applies where property is held for a charitable purpose (original purpose) but is incapable of being disposed of for that purpose. Section 10(1) contemplates five circumstances under which this might occur. Relevantly, s 10(1)(a), provides that s 10 will apply where 'it is impossible, impracticable or inexpedient to carry out the original purpose'.
2. Under such circumstances, s 10(2) of the Act requires the property held for a charitable purpose to be applied to some other charitable purpose (alternative charitable purpose) that is 'as close as possible to the original purpose'.
3. 'Property held for a charitable purpose' is defined in s 4 of the Act to mean property that is held on trust for, or is otherwise to be applied to, a charitable purpose.
4. 'Charitable purpose' is defined in s 4 of the Act as follows:

(a) means a purpose that is charitable under the law of this State; and

(b) includes a charitable purpose as defined in the Charities Act 2013 (Commonwealth) section 12.

1. Under s 10(4) of the Act, the persons in whom the property is vested must, as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of those circumstances, submit to the Attorney General for approval a scheme for the application of the property to an alternative purpose.
2. Similarly, s 13(1) of the Act provides that persons in whom property held for a charitable purpose is vested must prepare and submit to the Attorney General a scheme if they want the property to be dealt with in accordance with an approved scheme.
3. Section 14 of the Act deals with submission of a scheme to the Attorney General. Section 14(3) requires the Attorney General to prepare a report (scheme report) about the scheme addressing the matters referred to in s 25(1), to which I will return.
4. The property to which the Scheme relates has a value of approximately $600,000.[4] As such, it falls outside the scope of a scheme that may be approved by the Attorney General,[5] and must be approved by this court as provided in s 18 of the Act. Before the court considers an application under s 18(1) of the Act, the persons in whom the property is vested must give notice of the application in accordance with s 19(2) of the Act.
5. Section 21(3) provides that the court has jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all matters relating to the scheme and, subject to s 25 of the Act, may make an order pursuant to s 21(4) of the Act approving the scheme with or without modification or refusing to approve the scheme, as it thinks fit. The court may also approve the inclusion of a provision in a scheme for the expenses of the scheme to be paid out of, and be a charge on, the property to which the scheme relates, as provided in s 24 of the Act.
6. The matters the court must be satisfied of under s 25(1) of the Act, before approving a scheme are:

(a) that the scheme is appropriate to carry out each proposed purpose and is not contrary to the law of this State or generally accepted standards of decency and propriety;

(b) that the scheme can be approved under Pt 3 of the Act;

(c) that each proposed purpose under the scheme is a charitable purpose that can be carried out; and

(d) that the requirements of Pt 3 of the Act have been complied with in relation to the scheme (with the court having the power under s 22 to approve the scheme if it thinks fit, despite non‑compliance with the procedural requirements in Pt 3 in relation to the scheme).

1. Under cl 2 of its constitution,[6] CCGM's purposes as stated in its objects were:

(a) To provide a Christian educational outreach to members of pseudo­Christian and non-Christian cults contrasting the cults' beliefs and practices against the truths of the Christian Faith and presenting the true Christ as Lord and Saviour in such a way that persons will be free to choose Christianity if they so wish with a clearer understanding of what it is.

(b) To provide Christian educational help, counselling, support and relevant available material, assistance without distinction of colour, race or creed to those disenchanted and dissatisfied with the cultic group to which they may belong; to those facing the trauma of leaving or of having left a cult; to the families and relatives of cultic group members - especially to those who, because of cultic involvement, are suffering distress, disorientation, family disintegration, loss of employment, destitution; and to those who, through poverty or other social misfortune, lack the support systems to help them, which may more readily be available to others.

(c) To provide Christian educational resources and cult materials for accurate research and information; such resources to be available wherever possible for use, loan or purchase.

(d) To provide Christian education and training for CCG Ministries, staff, volunteers and other members, enabling them to pass on, teach, instruct others on the beliefs, teaching principles and practices of CCG Ministries in accordance with the afore mentioned objects.

1. The plaintiff deposes that there are currently no other organisations in Western Australia, or Australia, that share precisely the same purposes as CCGM, being, in general terms, the advancement of the Christian faith and advancement of Christian education with a focus on contrasting Christian beliefs and education with those of pseudo‑Christian and non‑Christian cults.[7]
2. The Scheme proposes that the trust property that was originally the subject of the gift to CCGM be distributed instead to PBC.

1. PBC's purposes are set out in rule 4(1) of its rules,[8] as follows:

4.(1) The Perth Bible College is a non-profit association providing higher education by:

(a) Promoting and encouraging the study of the Holy Scriptures.

(b) Promoting the knowledge of the principles and teachings of Christianity and to promote and encourage the practice of such principles in Australia and in other countries.

(c) To teach, educate, train and prepare persons for Christian service.

(d) To instruct persons in the principles, doctrines and teachings of the Holy Scriptures, their history and development, and the history, growth and development of Christianity.

(e) To establish and conduct schools (boarding and other), classes and correspondence courses for the foregoing purposes and related matters such as all subjects helpful to a full knowledge and understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

(f) To form working relationships with other Christian organisations for the purpose of pursuing the objects of the Association.

1. The plaintiff applied to the Attorney General for a scheme under which one of the original beneficiaries under cl 8 of the Will, CCGM, be substituted with PBC, on the basis that PBC has charitable purposes, 'as close as possible' to those of CCGM[9] (the Scheme).
2. By letter dated 28 June 2024, the Attorney General provided a scheme report as required by s 14(3) of the Act.[10] In the scheme report, the Attorney General addresses each of the criteria in s 25(1) of the Act and concludes that he supports the Scheme.

1. Having considered the application, the supporting affidavits and submissions, I am satisfied that each of the criteria in s 25(1) of the Act have been met.
2. Section 10(1)(a) of the Act applies to the property held by the plaintiff for the original purpose of the charitable bequest to CCGM because it is impossible to carry out the original purpose. The gift to CCGM has failed because that entity no longer exists.
3. The Scheme proposes that the failed gift to CCGM be distributed to PBC, which it is submitted qualifies as an alternative charitable purpose. The Second Reading Speech for the Charitable Trusts Bill 2022 (Bill)[11] introduces the Bill as one to repeal and replace the Charitable Trusts Act 1962 (WA) with a new modern act, stating that charitable trusts are trusts for purposes rather than persons.[12]
4. CCGM's purposes included providing Christian education and support to members of pseudo‑Christian and non‑Christian cults and contrasting those cults' beliefs and practices with those of the Christian faith. It also had a purpose of providing Christian educational and training for its ministry staff, volunteers and members to educate others.
5. PBC's purposes include, more generally, a focus on the advancement of the Christian faith and Christian education and are not specifically directed to educating and supporting members of pseudo‑Christian and non‑Christian cults. However, although there are differences, CCGM and PBC share purposes of Christian education, including training others to provide Christian teaching and service. PBC's purposes are, in many respects, substantially the same as those of CCGM.
6. Article 12 of CCGM's constitution provides that upon dissolution, any surplus funds should be paid to other organisations having objects similar or in part similar to the objects of CCGM.[13] It is notable that, when CCGM was dissolved, surplus assets of CCGM were distributed to PBC. As submitted, this demonstrates that CCGM's members considered PBC's objects to be similar to those of CCGM.
7. As observed in the submissions made and the Second Reading Speech for the Bill, it is the proposed purpose, not the recipient entity that is important. Even if there were other organisations with similar purposes to those of PBC, provided PBC's purposes are as close as possible to those of the original purpose, the Scheme meets the requirements of s 10(2) of the Act. I am satisfied that the Scheme achieves a purpose that is as close as possible to the original purpose.
8. As to whether the proposed purpose under the Scheme is a charitable purpose that can be carried out, as stated in the scheme report, the purpose of the bequest is clearly charitable. The 'advancement of religion' is one of the four well recognised principal divisions of charity.[14] The purpose of advancing religion is also a charitable purpose under s 12(1)(d) of the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) (Commonwealth Act), and the definition of a charitable purpose in s 4 of the Act expressly includes any purpose that is charitable under that Act. Similarly, the 'advancement of education' is another of the four well recognised principal divisions of charity, and a charitable purpose under s 12(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Act.
9. PBC is a registered charity whose purposes include the charitable purposes of the advancement of religion and the advancement of education. I am satisfied that the proposed substitution of PBC will achieve a charitable purpose that is as close as possible to that of the original bequest, and that the purpose can be carried out.
10. For these reasons, I am satisfied that:

(a) the Scheme is appropriate to carry out the proposed purpose and is not contrary to the law of this State or generally accepted standards of decency and propriety;

(b) the Scheme can be approved under Part 3 of the Act; and

(c) the proposed purpose under the Scheme is a charitable purpose that can be carried out.

1. I am also satisfied that the requirements of Pt 3 of the Act have been complied with. The Scheme has been submitted to the Attorney General for approval as required by ss 10 and 13 of the Act. The Attorney General has prepared a scheme report addressing the matters in s 25(1), and supports the Scheme.
2. Notice of the Scheme has been given in accordance with the orders made on 10 April 2025, as required by s 19 of the Act.[15] No notice has been given to the plaintiff's or defendant's solicitors or to the court pursuant to s 20 of the Act by any person wanting to oppose the application to approve the Scheme.

1. The application for approval of the Scheme proposes that all reasonable costs and expenses of and incidental to obtaining approval for the Scheme be paid out of, and be a charge on, the trust property, the subject of the Scheme. This is provided for by s 24 of the Act.
2. I am satisfied it is appropriate to make orders in the terms proposed. An order in such terms is also consistent with orders made for applications of a similar nature under the Charitable Trusts Act 1962 (WA), which was replaced by the Act.[16]

1. For these reasons, I am satisfied that a scheme is required in relation to the failed gift to CCGM under the Will, that the Scheme the subject of the application meets the requirements of the Act and should be approved.
2. Orders will be made approving the Scheme substantially in the terms of those in the originating summons, with the effect that the terms of the charitable trust established by the Will, as varied, is varied by substituting Perth Bible College Inc for the named beneficiary, Christian Growth Ministries Inc, as set out in the proposed orders.
3. I will also make an order that the plaintiff's and the defendant's reasonable costs and expenses of and incidental to preparing and advertising the Scheme, and of obtaining approval of the Scheme from the Supreme Court of Western Australia, including the costs reserved on 10 April 2025, be paid out of, and be a charge on, the trust property referred to.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] See Margaret Joy Langton Britton by next friend The Public Trustee v Britton [2023] WASC 352.

[2] Affidavit of Eric Eng Wei Tan sworn 21 February 2025, filed on 24 February 2025 (Tan February 2025 Affidavit) [21], 'EET-5'.

[3] Tan February 2025 Affidavit [23] - [24], 'EET-6'.

[5] Charitable Trusts Act 2022 (WA) s 16(1).

[6] Tan February 2025 Affidavit [32], 'EET-7'.

[7] Tan February 2025 Affidavit [34], [40].

[8] Tan February 2025 Affidavit [33], 'EET-8'.

[9] Tan February 2025 Affidavit [42], 'EET-9'; Tan June 2025 Affidavit [2], 'EET-2'.

[10] Tan February 2025 Affidavit [43], 'EET-10'.

[11] Parliament of Western Australia, Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, Thursday 7 April 2022; Parliament of Western Australia, Second Reading Speech, Legislative Council, Thursday 16 June 2022.

[12] Parliament of Western Australia, Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, Thursday 7 April 2022, 1785b (David Templeman, Leader of the House).

[13] Tan February 2025 affidavit [32] 'EET-7', [34] - [36].

[14] As referred to in Commissioners for Special Purpose of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531, 583; Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation (2010) HCA 42; [2010] 241 CLR 539 [18] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ); The Public Trustee as Executor of the will of Granville Cecil Venters (dec) v Attorney General for the State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 33 [65] (McKechnie J).

[15] Affidavit of Eric Tan sworn 9 May 2025.

[16] See Roger Price as Executor of the Estate of Beryl Sheila Price v Attorney General for Western Australia [2014] WASC 430; The Public Trustee as Executor of the will of Granville Cecil Venters (dec) v Attorney General for the State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 33; Jeffery Lin as executor of the estate of Emerald Cynthia Wolff Michaelson v Schubert [2019] WASC 212.