High Court rules £100,000 fund for late boy with brain cancer must go to DIPG charities, not his sister

A London judge has ruled that nearly £100,000 raised for a nine-year-old boy who died of a rare brain cancer must be distributed to charities supporting sufferers and research into diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), rejecting his parents’ bid to redirect the money to their terminally ill daughter.

Deputy Master Marc Glover heard that wellwishers donated the money to Essex-based children’s cancer charity Gold Geese after Lego-loving Kyle Morrison was diagnosed with an aggressive brain-stem tumour in 2019. Kyle was due to travel to the United States for treatment in 2020, but travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the trip and he died in October 2020. More than 1,500 individual donations and group fundraising efforts formed the fund at the centre of the dispute.

Kyle’s parents, Craig Evison and Victoria Morrison, subsequently had a daughter, Ruby-Rose, who was born in 2022 and later diagnosed with a genetic metabolic condition described in court papers as Megdel syndrome. The couple asked Gold Geese to transfer the remaining donations to help pay for treatment and to fund family experiences to “make memories” for their younger child. Representing themselves, Victoria Morrison told the judge, “We just want the money to make as many memories as we can.”

Gold Geese opposed the request, saying the charity’s objects and the donors’ clear intentions limited how the funds could be used. The charity told the High Court it was legally obliged to use the money for child cancer causes and, if Kyle’s treatment could not be funded because he died, for other children suffering from DIPG or for research into the disease. Its barrister, William Moffett, argued that diverting the money to a non-cancer condition would be outside the charity’s purpose and the terms communicated to donors.

In his written ruling, Deputy Master Glover concluded that the donors had intended the funds to benefit children suffering from DIPG or research into the disease. The judge noted that parts of the fundraising campaign had expressly told potential donors that if Kyle died before treatment any remaining funds would be distributed between other DIPG charities, and that donors had redirected sums originally raised in the name of a different child who had also died of DIPG.

"The sentiment expressed [by supporters] is entirely understandable," the judge said, referring to letters and messages produced in support of the parents’ case. "But the function of this court is to apply the law to the facts. In spite of the heartache to the family due to the surrounding circumstances, it must reach a just and fair decision." He added that at the heart of the dispute was Kyle, who died aged nine after suffering from a rare and aggressive childhood brain-stem cancer.

The court heard that some of the fund had already been used to pay for Kyle’s funeral and that Mr Evison had asked that part of the sum be used to install a memorial bench in Kyle’s name. The judge allowed Gold Geese to recoup its legal fees from the fund but said the charity would not seek to recover court costs from the parents. Any remaining money will be divided between two charities focused on DIPG; Gold Geese was granted permission to make those distributions.

The case highlights legal principles that govern charitable donations and restricted funds: charities are generally required to adhere to the purposes for which donations are given, and courts will seek to honour donor intent where it can be determined. The High Court’s decision rests on evidence presented about the terms of the online campaign and the representations made to potential donors during fundraising.

Lawyers for Gold Geese told the court the charity would follow the ruling and allocate the remaining funds to the specified DIPG organisations. The judgment may bring relief to donors and groups focused on DIPG research, while the Morrison family said the decision is a disappointment amid the continuing tragedy of losing one child and facing the likely loss of another.

Deputy Master Glover said he hoped the couple would "take some comfort" from the fact that the funds will support research into the cancer that claimed their son and that their campaigning had helped raise awareness of the disease. The family’s wider campaign to support their daughter’s care and experiences, including an appeal to take her to Florida, remains separate from the disputed fund.