The 150 Year Rule Falls - Cayman Perpetuities Act Changes

Published: 29 Jul 2024
Type: Insight

The Perpetuities (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (Bill) has been passed by the Cayman Islands Parliament and will come into force following royal assent on a date to be appointed by Order of Cabinet and will be known as The Perpetuities Act (2024 Revision) (Act).


The consultation process of the Bill included the membership of STEP Cayman Islands and other local industry representatives, including Appleby, to assist with  producing the  legislation  that will pass into law.

The position in the Cayman Islands before the Act was passed regarding perpetuity periods applicable to trusts was:

  • Trusts that were established on or after 1 August 1995 were subject to a statutory perpetuity maximum period of 150 years[1] alongside the “wait and see” rule. The “wait and see” rule safeguarded against trusts failing by allowing interested persons to wait until the expiry of the perpetuity period to see if a disposition of property has vested or not; and
  • Cayman Islands STAR Trusts are not subject to the rules against perpetuities and therefore can exist in perpetuity[2].

Highlights of the Bill & Choice Given to the Settlor

The Act permits the settlor of a new trust to disapply the rule against perpetuities and to create a perpetual trust. The removal of the mandatory 150-year perpetuity period rule for existing and future trusts[3] (Rule) immediately brings Cayman’s legislation in line with  other established trusts jurisdictions such as the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Jersey and Guernsey. The disapplication of the Rule  further enhances the Cayman Islands top tier position as the global jurisdiction of choice for trusts and trust services.

One of the  notable points  in the disapplication of the Rule is that a settlor now has the option to choose whether or not to disapply the Rule  for a newly settled trust . . If the settlor does not disapply the Rule, the Rule will continue to apply to the newly settled trust which will have a maximum perpetuity period of 150 years as before.

If a new trust is created and the settlor exercises his or her option to forego the Rule, the new trust must meet the following criterion:

  • The trust must not hold or have any interest in land in the Cayman Islands (i.e. Cayman real estate holdings cannot be an asset of a trust that disapplies the Rule).

This real estate holdings caveat to the Rule is a matter of policy which the Cayman Islands Government wished to retain in order to protect the Cayman Islands from any adverse impact that the disapplication of the Rule may have on land holdings held in trust within the Islands. However, it is clear that the vast  majority of assets held in Cayman settled trusts are foreign assets and not Cayman land holdings. This further provides comfort to the residents of the Islands as Cayman land holdings are not being significantly impacted.

Impact on Existing Trust Structures & How the Rule Applies

Under the newly proposed S.20 of the Act, an application to the Grand Court to disapply the Rule to an existing trust may be made by a trustee, settlor, enforcer or a person with a beneficial interest in the trust.  This brings the legislation in line with new trusts disapplying the Rule as explained above. Under S.20(2) of the Act, the Grand Court has  the power to vary the terms of the trust and grant an order in relation to the application to disapply the Rule where the Grand Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries or purposes of the trust .

In practice, before the Cayman regime underwent the transition to the proposed Bill, it was important for trust deeds to specify the perpetuity period applicable to a trust (i.e. when the trust would terminate and trust assets would vest). On the ‘vesting date’ the trust assets are distributed to a beneficiary and the  trust period  ends. Where the particular vesting date is fixed for existing trust structures, issues may arise in relation to oncoming taxable events in relation to the vesting date, any charitable structures may also face issues, and family estate planning goals may be interrupted due to the vesting date. The ability to apply to the Court under S.20 to disapply the Rule may greatly assist with any of the foregoing issues, as well as provide peace of mind to keep assets retained within the trust structure indefinitely.

Impact on Change of Governing Law of Trust Structures & How the Rule Applies

The new Bill further allows for established foreign trusts to which the Rule currently does not apply and where the governing law is altered to that of the Cayman Islands to disapply the Rule through an application to the Grand Court. S.89 of the Cayman Islands Trusts Act (2021 Revision) outlines the provisions that relate to governing law and the procedure and validity of selecting the laws of the Cayman Islands to govern the trust[4].

Under S.21 of the Act, if the governing law of the foreign trust meets the following criterion a disposition may be made in accordance with S.89 of the Trusts Act (2021 Revision)[5] upon the application that the Rule shall not apply to the trust:

  • That the governing law of the trust is currently of unlimited duration; and
  • The rule against perpetuities does not currently apply to the trust under its governing law.

Further in line with the overarching intent of protecting land holdings within the Cayman Islands, any land or an interest in land within the Islands will not be subject to the Rule being disapplied by an application brought under S.21.

Appleby Commentary

  1. In terms of jurisdictional comparison, there certainly is a trend to disapply the rule against perpetuities in a number of jurisdictions globally. These include,    jurisdictions such as Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey and Hong Kong which have abolished them altogether.
  2. The enhancements to the Act work in tandem with the Trusts Act (2021 Revision)[6] and continue to strengthen the Cayman Islands dynamic and flexible trusts legislation as a whole. Additionally, the clear drafting of the new provisions of the Act provide for a practical approach for trust professionals to engage with the legislation.
  3. In practice, Appleby advises a wide variety of clients on trust structuring matters involving the Perpetuities Act, in conjunction with the Trusts Act (2021 Revision)[7]. We are looking forward to the new flexibility that the Act will offer our clients when settling new trusts, potentially altering existing trust structures and when transferring structures to sit under Cayman Islands law in order to take advantage of the ability to extend trust structures into perpetuity.
[1] Perpetuities Act (1999 Revision), S.5(1)
[2]Part VIII Trusts Act (2021 Revision)
[3] Ibid 2
[4] Trusts Act (2021 Revision), S.89
[5] Ibid 5
[6] Trusts Act (2021 Revision)
[7] Ibid 7
Key contacts
Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.