Grainger v Bloomfield & Anor

In *Grainger v Bloomfield & Anor*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will and the application of the rule against perpetuities. The appellant, Ms. Grainger, was the executor and beneficiary of the estate of the late Mr. Bloomfield, who had established a discretionary trust for the benefit of his grandchildren. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the trust's terms were sufficiently certain to be valid, particularly in light of the potential for the trust to vest at a time beyond the perpetuity period.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trust deed created a valid discretionary trust, and secondly, whether the trust was void for uncertainty, specifically concerning the objects of the trust and the perpetuity period. The appellant argued that the trust was valid and that the beneficiaries were sufficiently identified, while the respondents contended that the trust was void for uncertainty, rendering the assets to be distributed as on an intestacy.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of certainty required for the creation of a valid trust, particularly the "class ascertainability" test for discretionary trusts. Kiefel and Nettle JJ held that for a discretionary trust to be valid, the beneficiaries must be ascertainable with sufficient certainty. They found that the wording of the trust deed, which referred to "such of the grandchildren of the settlor as shall be living at the date of distribution," created an uncertainty as to the class of beneficiaries. This uncertainty, coupled with the potential for the trust to vest outside the perpetuity period, led the Court to conclude that the trust was void.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, upholding the decision of the lower court that the trust was void for uncertainty. This meant that the assets intended for the trust were to be distributed according to the rules of intestacy.