The High Court has directed that Eileen Curtin’s will be read as leaving her Sandymount apartment and its contents to Barbara Black, after finding that the named beneficiary, “Rosemary Black”, did not exist as described in the will.
The order followed a special summons by Maureen Black, Curtin’s niece and the estate’s personal representative, seeking to have evidence outside the will admitted under section 90 of the Succession Act 1965. The court ruled that the evidence met the legal test for explaining a contradiction in the will and showing the deceased’s intention. It then directed that clause 4 of the will, dated 1 August 2013, has the effect of bequeathing the apartment and its contents to Barbara Black.
The will named “Rosemary Black (daughter of my niece, Maureen Black)” as the recipient. The judgment records that Maureen Black had three daughters—Barbara, Nicola and Jennifer—and no daughter named Rosemary.
Maureen Black’s evidence was that Curtin had said on several occasions that she intended to leave the apartment to Barbara, although she had not told her that she had done so in the will. Maureen’s husband, Victor Black, said he recalled a 2013 telephone call in which Curtin told him she intended to leave the apartment to Barbara. Their other daughters, Nicola and Jennifer, supported the application in letters.
Brian Whitaker, who prepared the will, said Curtin told him she had decided to leave the apartment to a daughter of Maureen Black because she had visited Curtin regularly. In a later affidavit, he exhibited a written attendance with the deceased. The court also considered concerns raised by Family Solidarity Limited, one of the residuary beneficiaries, including the absence of an affidavit explanation for why Barbara was named correctly in another clause but as Rosemary in clause 4, and questions about how the address in clause 4 was added.
The judge concluded that the combined evidence explained the contradiction and identified the daughter Curtin intended to benefit. The court said it was not rewriting the will or changing an ambiguous clause; it was interpreting the will with the aid of admissible evidence. Its order concerned the specific apartment bequest and did not state any broader alteration to the will.