Grant v Attorney General of NSW

The case of Grant v Attorney General of NSW involved a dispute over the application and distribution of the Holroyd FESPIC Fund. The fund was initially collected from government grants and public subscription for the Holroyd FESPIC Games 1977, which were athletics events for disabled persons. After the Games, a surplus remained and a deed dated 28 July 1980 declared a trust for the travel of those wishing to participate in the FESPIC Sporting Competition for disabled persons. The funds were to be used for travel to the FESPIC Games in cities in Asia every four years, assisting disabled persons from Australia and the countries in Asia and Pacific Islands.

The legal issues before the court were whether the general charitable intention of the fund could be ascertained and applied, and whether the purposes of the trust were charitable. The trustees believed that the successor body's objects and purposes were significantly different and sought to terminate the trust. They proposed a scheme, supported by the Attorney General, to distribute the funds to two bodies operating in a similar field in New South Wales. The court had to consider the size of the fund, the general charitable intention, the charitable nature of the purposes, and the expediency of the proposed scheme.

The court determined that the general charitable intention of the Holroyd FESPIC Fund was to assist disabled persons in participating in international sporting events. Although the International FESPIC Federation had dissolved after the 9th FESPIC Games, the core purpose of supporting disabled athletes remained. The court held that the proposed scheme of distribution to similar charities in New South Wales was appropriate and in line with the fund's charitable intention. The court ordered the Cy près scheme, allowing the fund to be applied for the benefit of disabled athletes in a manner consistent with the original charitable purpose.