Re Moore;

The High Court of Australia considered the application of the rule against perpetuities to a discretionary trust established by the late Mr. Moore. The dispute arose from the terms of Mr. Moore's will, which created a trust for the benefit of his children and grandchildren, with the trustees having discretion to distribute the income and capital. The question before the Court was whether the trust was void for remoteness.

The central legal issue was whether the discretionary trust offended the rule against perpetuities. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the interests of potential beneficiaries under the trust were certain to vest within the perpetuity period. This involved an analysis of the trust deed's provisions concerning the distribution of capital and income, and whether these provisions created a possibility of vesting outside the permissible timeframe.

The High Court held that the trust was not void for remoteness. The Court reasoned that a discretionary trust, by its nature, does not create a vested interest in any particular beneficiary until the trustees exercise their discretion. However, the rule against perpetuities applies to the *power* to appoint or vest interests, not to the interests themselves. In this instance, the Court found that the power to distribute the trust property was effectively limited by the terms of the trust to vest within the perpetuity period. The Court applied the principle that a power of appointment is valid if it can be exercised within the perpetuity period, even if the interests appointed might otherwise be remote.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the discretionary trust.