King v Piper

In *King v Piper*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will and the application of the rule against perpetuities. The primary issue before the court was whether a gift to a class of beneficiaries was void for remoteness, thereby failing and passing to the residuary beneficiaries.

The court was required to determine whether the contingent gift to the grandchildren of the testator, who were to receive a share of the estate upon reaching the age of 25, offended the rule against perpetuities. This rule dictates that an interest in property must vest within a perpetuity period, typically 21 years after the death of a relevant life in being. The central question was whether the age contingency of 25 years was valid or if it rendered the gift void from the outset.

Gummow and Heydon JJ applied established principles of will construction and the rule against perpetuities. Their Honours noted that a gift to a class will be void for remoteness if any member of that class might take an interest outside the perpetuity period. In this instance, the testator's grandchildren were not necessarily lives in being at the time of his death, and the contingency of reaching 25 years could potentially occur more than 21 years after the death of the last surviving relevant life in being. The court reasoned that the age contingency of 25 years was not reducible to 21 years by any means, and therefore the gift was void for remoteness.

The High Court held that the gift to the grandchildren was void for remoteness and ordered that the appeal be dismissed.