Candy v Christensen

In *Candy v Christensen*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the proper construction of a will. The applicants, the executors of the estate of the late Mr. Christensen, sought directions from the court regarding the distribution of certain assets. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of a specific clause within the will that purported to create a life interest in favour of the respondent, Mrs. Christensen, with the remainder to her children.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the clause in the will effectively created a valid life interest in favour of Mrs. Christensen, or if it was void for uncertainty. This required the Court to examine the language used by the testator and determine whether it evinced a clear intention to grant a life estate with a defined remainder interest. The Court also had to consider the principles of testamentary construction, particularly in circumstances where the wording of a will might be ambiguous.

The High Court held that the clause in question was void for uncertainty. Their Honours reasoned that the language used by the testator did not clearly delineate the extent of the interest granted to Mrs. Christensen, nor did it sufficiently specify the beneficiaries of the remainder interest. Consequently, the Court found that the purported life interest and remainder were not capable of being given effect according to law. The Court therefore made orders that the assets in question were to be distributed as on an intestacy.