© The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Thousand year trusts?
Correspondence: *Tony Molloy QC, Shortland Chambers, 13/70 Shortland Street, PO Box 4338, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: apmolloyqc@shortlandchambers.co.nz
Correspondence: **Toby Graham, Partner and Head of Contentious Trusts and Estates, Farrer & Co, 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, UK WC2A 3LH. Email: tbg@farrer.co.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Until statutory intervention in the 1960s, the so-called Rule against Perpetuities, and the Rule against Accumulations, provided endless fun for counsel advising on trusts in which they had been overlooked on all sides. Of that bizarre world, peopled with unborn widows, fertile octogenarians and children en ventre sa frigidaire, Dean J., in the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria, Australia, said, in Re Fawaz [1958] VR 426, 431:
The attitude of the law on this matter would not commend itself to an intelligent layman. It is prepared to concede that a deceased person cannot have children, but it will concede no more. The fact that by a surgical operation a woman's organs of generation have been removed, or the fact that she is of an advanced age, will not in the eye of the law exclude the possibility of further children being born to her. ... [T]he rule. . . [Full Text of this Article]