Murray-Aynsley CJ:

This Summons concerns a usual type of Chinese will.The testator gave the residue to trustees for conversion and subject thereto to pay the balance of income, after paying outgoings and certain temporary annuities, for a period of 21 years to three sons named in the will and after the period of 21 years to hold on trust for the same three sons both as to capital and income.There is a proviso dealing with the interest of any son who should die leaving issue before the period of 21 years.This has not happened.One of the sons died testate not leaving issue.The question is whether the interest of that son was vested.If the matter were free from authority one would be inclined to think that there could only be an object in postponing enjoyment (where there is no question of a minority) for a period in gross if the shares do not vest in the meantime.If the shares vest the provision postponing enjoyment becomes more or less nugatory.However, it is impossible to disregard the formidable body of case law.Modern cases are consistent where the postponement is not during the minority of the recipient.In these days I think that Batsford v. Kebbell [1797], 3 Ves Jun 363; 6 RR 15; 30 ER 1055, cannot be considered as an authority.Even in the "minority" cases the older views against vesting no longer prevail (see Re Lodwig [1916] 2 Ch. 26). I think that the case is at the present time unarguable.

The answer must be that the share of Ong Biow Sim passed to his personal representatives.

Costs as prayed.

Order accordingly.