Re Coxen [1948] Ch 747

Facts

  • The case concerns the interpretation of a will containing ambiguous or uncertain testamentary provisions.
  • The court was asked to determine whether uncertain clauses, vague beneficiary descriptions, or unclear conditional terms could be resolved by judicial interpretation.
  • The testator’s intentions were in question due to the use of subjective terms and unclear conditions in the will.
  • The court considered whether extrinsic evidence and objective standards could be used to clarify ambiguous will clauses.

Issues

  1. Whether uncertainty in testamentary dispositions invalidates provision(s) in a will.
  2. When, and to what extent, courts may admit extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity in testamentary documents.
  3. How objective standards, such as the “reasonable person” test, apply to the interpretation of unclear provisions or beneficiary designations.
  4. The extent to which courts can enforce or sever conditions in wills that are vague or insufficiently clear.
  5. The limits on judicial intervention where the testator’s intention cannot be reasonably determined.

Decision

  • The court held that uncertainty could render testamentary provisions unenforceable if the intention of the testator cannot be ascertained.
  • Extrinsic evidence was permitted to clarify latent (hidden) ambiguities but not to contradict clear wording of the will.
  • Objective standards, including the “reasonable person” test, could be used to interpret unclear or subjective terms.
  • Vague or ambiguous conditions in wills that cannot be interpreted or fulfilled may be severed, upholding the rest of the valid gift.
  • Where ambiguity is irreconcilable, and intention cannot be determined, the relevant gift fails and the property passes under intestacy rules.
  • Testamentary freedom is subject to the requirement of certainty in will provisions.
  • Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to resolve ambiguities only when the meaning is unclear in light of factual application, not to override clear textual meaning.
  • The “reasonable person” standard assists in interpreting subjective terms where explicit testator intention is lacking.
  • Conditions precedent or subsequent in wills must be sufficiently clear to be enforceable; otherwise, they may be severed.
  • Courts cannot speculate about a testator’s intentions or alter the will where clear intention is absent.

Conclusion

Re Coxen [1948] Ch 747 establishes the principles governing judicial resolution of uncertainty in testamentary dispositions, highlighting the use of extrinsic evidence and objective standards to effectuate testator intentions where possible, while prioritizing clarity and enforceability in will drafting.

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