REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb00443.x |
| Date | 01 May 1957 |
| Published date | 01 May 1957 |
| Author | P. Stanley |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
PERPETUITIES
THE Law Reform Committee’s Fourth Report (Cmnd.
18
(1956))
is concerned with the Rule against Perpetuities. A summary is
difficult since the Report is closely reasoned clear and concise;
it
sets out the law
as
it
now stands, the defects in the application of
the Rule, the possible methods of reform and substantial suggestions
for
the Rule’s amendment. The Report, as does the Rule, falls
into three heads. “First there is the rule against remoteness
of
vesting which invalidates any trust
or
limitation which might by
possibility fail to become vested in interest (if
it
vests
at
all) within
the permitted period
of
a life
or
lives in being and twenty-one years
thereafter. Secondly, there is the closely allied rule against
restrictions
on
alienation which invalidates trusts
or
limitations
whereby property is rendered inaIienable
for
longer than the
permitted period. Thirdly, there are the rules against excessive
accumulations which restrain the accumulation of income for longer
than the appropriate statutory periods.”
Considering the first and most important limb of the Rule, the
Committee takes
it
to be
cc
beyond argument” that there must
be Some limit on the vesting of future interests and approaches the
matter from the point of view that
it
is only in the permitted period
that a change could be introduced. After discussing the difficulty
of using a
‘‘
Royal lives
”
clause, the Committee recommends that
‘‘
the perpetuity period shall be such a period
of
years not exceeding
eighty years as may be specified in the instrument creating the
limitation but that
if
no such period is specified the period shall be
the existing perpetuity period.”
The Report then discusses the three principal methods of reform
to remove the existing defects in the application of the Rule. From
this emerges the following (among eighteen, on this limb of the
Rule alone) substantial recommendations as amendments
to
the
Rule. First that
no
limitation should be invalidated by an
‘(
impossible possibility
”
and that
‘‘
(a) there should be a presumption, rebuttable by any
evidence to the contrary tendered at the time at which the
matter falls for decision (but not subsequently)-
(i) that no woman who has attained the age
of
fifty-five
years is capable
of
bearing a child; and
(ii) that a male
or
female who has not attained the age of
fourteen years is incapable
of
procreating
or
bearing
a child; and
264
To continue reading
Request your trial