## 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.


Re Cohen [1973] 1 WLR 415