Re Cohen [1973] 1 WLR 415

Facts

  • The testator’s will directed trustees to distribute income among “such members of my family and my late wife’s family as my trustees shall in their absolute discretion select.”
  • The central question arose over whether the beneficiary class described as “family” was sufficiently defined to meet the certainty of objects requirement under trust law.
  • The Chancery Division was required to interpret whether a discretionary trust for “family” was valid or void due to uncertainty.
  • The testator’s intention, read from the context of the will, was considered to focus on benefiting immediate relatives.

Issues

  1. Whether the word “family” as used in the trust was sufficiently certain to create a valid discretionary trust.
  2. Whether the trust’s provision constituted a valid trust for a broad class or failed as a private gift for lack of certainty.
  3. What standard of certainty should be applied in interpreting “family” as a class for trust purposes.

Decision

  • The court held that the term “family” was not too vague, and the trust for “family” did not fail for uncertainty.
  • Trustees could reasonably determine who was within “my family and my late wife's family” using common interpretation and the context of the will.
  • The trust was found to be valid, with sufficient conceptual certainty as required for discretionary trusts.

Legal Principles

  • Certainty of objects requires that a valid trust must define beneficiaries so they can be identified with sufficient clarity.
  • The court reaffirmed the “is or is not” test from McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424 for discretionary trusts, rather than the stricter “complete list” test from IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch 20.
  • Conceptual certainty, not evidential certainty, is key for broad discretionary classes: it must be possible to say with certainty whether any given person is or is not within the specified class.
  • Context and testator’s intention are important in interpreting broad words in testamentary instruments.
  • The distinction between discretionary trusts for broad classes and private gifts is fundamental; conceptual but not precise identification suffices for validity in the former.

Conclusion

Re Cohen confirms that a discretionary trust for “family” is valid if trustees can, by context and ordinary meaning, determine the class with sufficient conceptual certainty, reinforcing the flexibility of modern trust law principles for broadly framed discretionary trusts.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal