Some people may have been puzzled by the Brogdale Horticultural Trust’s rather cavalier dismissal of the County Court Judgement for non-payment of £36,782 taxes to HM Revenue and Customs that could have been a prelude to the winding up of their trading subsidiary Brogdale Orchards Ltd., (to read reports click on links below). However, information has now come to light which accounts for this casual attitude. The Trust has been left a substantial legacy of £389,800. This is revealed in the Trust’s accounts for the year ending 28 February 2007, which have recently been published.
In the donor’s will, the Trust’s legacy of £389,800 was the largest of three bequests to charitable organisations – the others being to the Brooke Hospital for Animals (£7,500) and Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (£7,500) – aside from personal bequests. The Trust’s share formed the remainder of the estate – ‘the balance therefore for the Brogdale Horticultural Trust, Brogdale Road, Faversham, Kent’. The will was made in November 2005. The Trust states in its accounts that it ‘will be making arrangements to recognise this generosity appropriately’, but as far as we are aware it has not yet done so, although it would seem appropriate to have informed the Friends of the Brogdale Horticultural Trust of this munificence by one of its members. The donor was a Friend of many years standing.
The Trust’s accounts show that after the legacy was received the Trust transferred nearly half – £175,362 – across to Brogdale Orchards Ltd. It appears that the Trust has used nearly half of the legacy to bail out its ailing trading company, rather than using it for its charitable work associated with the National Fruit Collections at Brogdale, as presumably the donor envisaged.
Joan Morgan
The news about the Trust’s use of this substantial legacy makes astonishing reading. How many people would make such a bequest to a charity if they knew that a large proportion of it would be used to fund a commercial operation and perhaps to pay taxes?
Are there any Friends of the Trust out there who might have known the donor or his/her intentions? It is interesting that the will states that this sum is to go to the Trust at ‘Brogdale Road, Faversham, Kent’. Could this specific use of the address be an indication that the donor would not have supported the Trust’s intention to move the Collections away from Brogdale?
One wonders how the Trustees see their role and whether they believe that this use of the bequest accords with the moral – if not legal – requirements of being a trustee.