How long is too long?

In this episode, hosts Richard and Lizzie unpack the High Court decision inCrest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Calvert [2026] EWHC 531 (Ch) and what it tells us about the enduring, and often misunderstood, rule against perpetuities.

The rule against perpetuities is designed to stop property from being tied up indefinitely. Traditionally, any future interest had to “vest” within a fixed period — often described as a life in being plus 21 years. If there was even a possibility that it wouldn’t, the arrangement could fail altogether.

That creates real tension in modern option agreements, a staple of long-term development deals, where buyers secure the right to purchase land years (sometimes decades) into the future, often conditional on planning.

Richard explores:

• how the rule against perpetuities developed, from The Duke of Norfolk's Case (1682) through to modern application;

• why option agreements have historically sat uncomfortably within that framework; and

• how the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 has reshaped the landscape by effectively removing the rule for options over land.

For developers, landowners and advisers, the message is simple: timing, drafting and structure matter, because even historic rules can still have modern consequences.

Other cases mentioned:

The Duke of Norfolk's Case (1682)

Street v Mountford[1985] AC 809