The High Court has ruled that a £500 bequest in the will of the late Edward J. Rafter to “Mayo County Council (Ballina area) workers” was void for uncertainty, because the intended beneficiaries could not be identified.
In a judgment delivered on 13 June 2012, Ms Justice Laffoy held that the bequest would fall into the residue of the estate under the Succession Act 1965. The ruling also means the council workers named in the bequest are not beneficiaries of the residue under that description.
Mark Thornton, a personal representative of Mr Rafter, brought the proceedings to establish who was meant to benefit. Mr Rafter died in 2006, aged 82, and had never married or had children. He had worked for Mayo County Council as a ganger in its Ballina outdoor staff from 1945 until retiring in 1990. His will was made in 1983.
The will included several charitable and benevolent gifts, as well as the £500 bequest to council workers. Its residue was to be realised, invested in prize bonds and shared equally among the will’s beneficiaries. The court was told the residue was expected to be about €250,000.
The council said it did not use the phrase “Mayo County Council (Ballina area) workers”. Its evidence included lists of staff in the area, with more than 70 outdoor workers. A former colleague, Michael Timlin, identified people who had worked closely with Mr Rafter, including outdoor workers and people who performed clerical functions. But he had never discussed Mr Rafter’s wishes with him.
Justice Laffoy found there was no admissible evidence showing whom Mr Rafter intended to benefit. The lists of staff and a former colleague’s opinion about who might have been included did not establish the testator’s intention. The court said that treating either the wider group of workers or the friendly former colleagues as beneficiaries would amount to rewriting the will.
The judge therefore found that the bequest could not be saved through the statutory preference for an effective interpretation. Under the Act, the failed gift passed into the residuary estate.
The judgment also noted that the Attorney General had not been notified, although charities’ interests could be affected. The court said it would serve no useful purpose to adjourn the case at that stage to give notice. The decision determined the construction of this bequest; it did not identify individual workers as entitled to share in the residue.