## Facts

- Villar’s will created trusts to (i) pay an annuity to his widow and (ii) pay income to his children during a defined “period of restriction,” with distribution of the trust assets after that period ended.
- The will defined the “period of restriction” as “the period ending at the expiration of 20 years from the day of death of the last survivor of all the lineal descendants of Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria who shall be living at the time of my death.”
- Villar died on September 6, 1926, leaving a widow, five children, and two grandchildren.
- The will was submitted to probate by Villar’s son Arthur together with the Public Trustee, who was involved in administering the estate/trust.
- Working out the end date required identifying all lineal descendants of Queen Victoria who were alive on the date of Villar’s death, and then tracking the death of the last survivor among them.
- Evidence showed the task was burdensome: a junior official filed an affidavit identifying about 120 such descendants as of 1922 (with the number likely higher by 1926), many living across Europe.
- Establishing and proving the pedigree of that many people would have been very expensive, and some family lines were difficult to trace after the war.
- There was also uncertainty in at least one well-known branch: Anastasia, a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria and a member of the Russian imperial family executed in 1918, raised questions about whether she (or any children) had survived.
- The Public Trustee applied to the court for directions, asking whether the trusts for the “period of restriction” were void for uncertainty or any other reason, and (if valid) asking the court to ascertain the relevant descendants living at Villar’s death.
- At first instance, the judge held that identification would be difficult and costly but not impossible, and upheld the trusts; four of Villar’s children appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “period of restriction” was void for uncertainty because it depended on identifying and proving a large, dispersed class (“all lineal descendants of Queen Victoria living at the testator’s death”).
2. Whether serious difficulty or expense in proving who falls within an objectively described class can make the gift/trust fail for uncertainty.
3. Whether the period of restriction was invalid under the rule against perpetuities, given that it was measured by lives in being at the testator’s death plus a fixed 20-year period.

## Decision

- The court upheld the validity of the period-of-restriction trusts and rejected the argument that they failed for uncertainty merely because proof would be onerous.
- The description of the measuring lives—lineal descendants of Queen Victoria who were alive at Villar’s death—was treated as an objective criterion; the administration problem was one of evidence and cost, not legal uncertainty.
- The court treated the perpetuity point as satisfied because the trust period was limited to the death of the last survivor among lives in being at the testator’s death, plus a further 20 years (a fixed term within the traditional perpetuity allowance).
- The court accepted that the necessary genealogical questions could be dealt with through evidence and inquiry in the ordinary way, even if the process would be expensive and time-consuming.
- The appeal by four of Villar’s children was dismissed, leaving the first-instance order upholding the trusts in place.

## Legal Principles

- A disposition does not fail for uncertainty where the criterion of membership is definite, even if proving the facts needed to apply that criterion is difficult, lengthy, or expensive.
- Courts distinguish uncertainty in the language of the gift (a defective test) from difficulty in establishing the facts to apply a clear test (an evidential problem); evidential difficulty alone does not defeat the gift.
- For perpetuity purposes, the measuring lives may be persons who are not beneficiaries and may be defined by reference to an external class, provided the class is confined to human lives in being at the relevant time.
- A trust period measured by lives in being at the testator’s death plus a stated additional term can comply with the common-law rule against perpetuities; administrative inconvenience does not alter the remoteness analysis.

## Conclusion

In *In re Villar*, the court held that a will may lawfully measure a trust period by reference to all Queen Victoria’s lineal descendants alive at the testator’s death, even though identifying and proving that class could be costly and difficult after wartime disruption; the provision was treated as legally certain and as falling within perpetuity limits because it was tied to lives in being plus a fixed 20-year term.


In re Villar, [1929] 1 Ch. 243 (1929)