Leaving a gift in a Will to a not-for-profit organisation (NFP) is one of the most meaningful ways a person can create a lasting legacy. For many testators and testatrixes, it is an opportunity to support causes they care deeply about long after they are gone. For NFPs, bequests are an often underutilised but incredibly powerful funding stream — one that can provide long-term financial sustainability without the need for ongoing fundraising campaigns. What is a Bequest? A bequest is a gift made in a Will. Some forms include: A percentage of the estate (residuary of the Estate) A specific sum of money (cash bequest) A particular asset (such as property, shares or artwork) For many clients, a bequest is an attractive option because it allows them to provide for family first, while still leaving a meaningful contribution to a cause they value. Common Types of Bequests When preparing a Will, it is critical that the clause is drafted correctly to avoid uncertainty or disputes. Below are two of the most common types of charitable bequests. 1. Residuary Bequest A residuary bequest gifts a percentage of the remaining estate after all debts, expenses and specific gifts have been dealt with. Example clause: I give and bequeath to [Full Legal Name of Charity] (ABN [insert]) of [address] the sum of [insert percentage, e.g. 10%] of my residuary estate for its general charitable purposes, free of all duties and taxes. I declare that the receipt of the Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer or other authorised officer for the time being of the organisation shall be a sufficient discharge to my Trustee, who shall not be bound to see to the application of this gift. This works well because residuary gifts naturally adjust with the size of the estate and reduce the risk of unintended consequences if asset values change over time. 2. Cash Bequest A cash (or pecuniary) bequest is a fixed sum gifted to the charity. Example clause: I give and bequeath to [Full Legal Name of Charity] (ABN [insert]) of [address] the sum of $[insert amount] for its general charitable purposes, free of all duties and taxes. I declare that the receipt of the Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer or other authorised officer for the time being of the organisation shall be a sufficient discharge to my Trustee, who shall not be bound to see to the application of this gift. Fixed amounts can lose value over time due to inflation, so some clients prefer percentage-based gifts instead. Why NFPs Should Be Actively Promoting Bequests Bequests are not just a legal mechanism — they are a strategic opportunity. Forward-thinking NFPs are increasingly building structured bequest programs as part of their fundraising strategy. This can include: Educating supporters about leaving a gift in their Will Providing suggested wording (like the clauses above) Hosting “Wills days” or legacy planning events Creating recognition programs for legacy donors Unlike traditional fundraising, bequests often come from highly engaged supporters and can result in significant contributions that materially impact an organisation’s future. Can Family Members Challenge a Bequest? The short answer is yes. In Australia, eligible family members can bring a family provision claim to challenge a Will if they believe they have not been adequately provided for. This means that even where a bequest has been validly drafted, it may still be reduced or altered by the Court. Should an NFP fight a claim? In most cases, our practical advice is to negotiate first. Litigation can be: Costly Time-consuming Reputationally risky for the organisation Many disputes can be resolved through commercial negotiation, balancing the needs of the family with the intentions of the deceased. NFPs should approach these situations pragmatically. The goal is to preserve as much of the gift as possible while avoiding unnecessary legal spend. When a Bequest May Not Be Suitable Not all gifts are straightforward or beneficial. Examples we often see include: Property that is expensive to maintain or difficult to sell Gifts tied to strict conditions the charity cannot realistically fulfil Assets that fall outside the charity’s purpose or operational capacity In these situations, it is often possible to work with the executor or executrix and the family to vary how the gift is applied, while still honouring the testator or testatrix’s intention. This may involve: Redirecting the gift to a general purpose fund Selling an asset and applying proceeds differently Agreeing on a practical alternative outcome The key is collaboration and not a rigid adherence to terms that may no longer be workable. Final Thoughts Bequests sit at the intersection of law, legacy, and impact. For individuals, they provide a powerful way to support causes that matter. For NFPs, they represent a long-term, sustainable funding opportunity. The most effective outcomes arise where: Wills are clearly and professionally drafted NFPs are proactive in their approach to bequests All parties take a practical, solution-focused approach where issues arise If you are considering including a charitable bequest in your Will or if your organisation is looking to establish or strengthen a bequest program and obtaining the right legal advice is critical.
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
Hammond Nguyen Turnbull is proud to have acted in a significant and long-awaited victory for champion harness racing driver Greg Bennett, who has been cleared to return to the sulky following a successful appeal before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Our Special Counsel, Peter Morris, instructed Mr Murdoch of King's Counsel for the Applicant in proceedings that mark one of the most important integrity and licensing decisions in recent harness racing history. After a 14-year absence from the industry, seeking a fresh start, Mr Bennett applied to be licensed in Queensland. When the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) refused his application, the matter proceeded to QCAT on appeal. The Tribunal undertook a detailed review of the history of the matter, the prior criminal proceedings, the integrity investigation process, and Mr Bennett’s character and conduct over many years. In a carefully reasoned decision, the Tribunal made several important findings: Mr Bennett had previously been found not guilty of criminal charges, including matters relating to the alleged production of his mobile phone. He was not charged with corruption. The only live issue relied upon to challenge his fitness to hold a licence was the historic “iPhone issue.” Evidence showed Mr Bennett had been consistent in his account over many years regarding the phone and his lack of knowledge of the broader scandal. No evidence was produced to the Tribunal contradicting his account. Witnesses gave uncontested evidence that he is mentally and physically fit, possesses the requisite skills and knowledge, and would be a positive contributor to the industry. Both NSW and Queensland authorities had already accepted his involvement in the industry as an owner, reflecting a level of ongoing trust. The Tribunal recognised his previously sound record, lengthy period of disqualification, and time away from the industry. Critically, the Tribunal also found that the process used to obtain evidence concerning Mr Bennett’s mobile phone had been so affected by irregularities that it led to “inexact proofs and indefinite testimony.” After considering the totality of the evidence, QCAT concluded that Mr Bennett is a fit and proper person to hold a Harness Racing Grade A Driver Licence. The Tribunal therefore: Set aside QRIC’s decision to refuse his application, and Substituted its own decision that Mr Bennett is eligible to be licensed. This ruling clears the way for one of the sport’s most accomplished drivers to return to competition after more than a decade in exile. Why This Decision Matters This decision is significant well beyond one individual. It reinforces that: Licensing decisions must be based on reliable and properly obtained evidence Historical allegations cannot be allowed to overshadow clear findings of good character and fitness without a proper evidentiary foundation Racing participants are entitled to procedural fairness, particularly where their livelihood and reputation are at stake For many in the industry, the outcome represents a long-overdue recognition that Mr Bennett’s continued exclusion was no longer justified. HNT – Experience in Racing and Integrity Matters Hammond Nguyen Turnbull regularly advises and represents trainers, drivers, owners, and other participants in: Stewards’ inquiries Integrity and rule breach proceedings Licensing disputes Appeals and tribunal reviews These matters are complex, highly specialised, and often career-defining. Early, strategic legal advice can make a critical difference to the outcome. If you are facing a racing integrity investigation or licensing issue, our team has the experience to guide you through the process and protect your interests.
