Talk:Cy-près doctrine in English law

	Cy-près doctrine in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Cy-près doctrine in English law/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 18:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) It seems good overall. I have a few minor quibbles and some questions about breadth of coverage.[reply]

• "Cy-près doctrine" or "cy-près doctrine"? Both are used in the middle of sentences.

  cy-près; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't there be an accent in "cy pres comme possible"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't cy-près doctrine be linked somewhere?

  Fixed; hope that's satisfactory with the details link. Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you say something about how often this doctrine is applied, and about the considerations that underlay the changes made in 1960 and 2006?

  The textbooks I've been looking at don't, unfortunately, mention anything. I'd OR-ly suggest that the 2006 change was to help charities people (and the judges!) work out what in the seven hells "spirit" meant. Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there no other possible sources, like Hansard, or perhaps even news coverage? Ucucha 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hansard is iffy, because it's primary. The news doesn't tend to cover reworkings of internal aspects of trusts law. I'm preparing an article on the 06 act (to be published at some yet-to-be-determined time) and none of the space article writers have dedicated to covering the legislation contains motives for cy-pres reform. Ironholds (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Primary sources are not always prohibited. What I'm getting at is that the article may not be broad in its coverage (as one of the GA criteria requires) because it only covers the rules and their origin. I gave a few examples of possible material that could be in the article above; another might be a slightly more in-depth examination of a case that involved this doctrine. On the other hand, I understand that there may be no sources, or at least no secondary sources, that cover these aspects of the doctrine. Ucucha 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a look in Hansard this evening and get back to you. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Having looked through Hansard, I can find nothing in the 06 records (although the new Hansard navigation system is manky) and little for the 1960 Act. Those references in the 1960 Act I can find are merely to amendments made to the original wording of the Act regarding cy-près, not references to the justification for the expansion in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. In that case, I'll pass it, as it's no fault of the article when information is not in the sources. Ucucha 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 18:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory notes to the bill prepared by the Home Office are on the Parliament website; comments relating to cy-pres are here in paras 64 onwards, and a synopsis of the pre-legislation history is here, together with urls for previous reports and discussion papers. There might be some useful bits and pieces in all this. Unsurprisingly, changes such as this don't come about in a twinkle of an eye with no preliminary discussion, and I'm mildly surprised Ironholds couldn't find anything!