Purpose trusts can also be valid if they are for the erection or maintenance of tombs and memorials (assuming such memorials are not overly grandiose), the maintenance of animals, and arguably the saying of masses, although these must all obey the rule against perpetuities and not continue for more than 21 years after the testator's death.
[5]Alastair Hudson, Professor of Equity and Finance Law at the University of Exeter, argues that this is an example of the "strict" rule against purpose trusts.
A looser application was found in Cocks v Manners,[6] a case with almost identical facts, where the court decided that the trust was valid as a gift to every member of the order individually, with the Mother Superior acting as a trustee.
The standard rule is that no trust can be drafted so that any interest lasts for longer than the life of the beneficiary, plus 21 years.
Purpose trusts, without beneficiaries, would cause unnecessary confusion if found valid because there is no marker by which to measure its existence.
Although for the benefit of a purpose, the wording identified a class of beneficiaries, which allowed the courts to find it valid.
One way to evade the rule, therefore, is to create a trust that benefits a group of people but is confined to a purpose.