The High Court has ruled that a charitable bequest in Edna O’Flynn’s will should benefit Masonic Havens Limited, which operates sheltered accommodation known as The Haven in Monkstown, County Dublin.
In a judgment delivered on 11 November 2011, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy found that the will’s reference to “the Committee for the time being of The Haven, Blackrock” did not, on its own, show an unambiguous intention to benefit the company. But he admitted evidence outside the will under section 90 of the Succession Act 1965 and concluded that the evidence established O’Flynn’s intended beneficiary.
O’Flynn’s 1986 will divided the residue of her estate equally among five beneficiaries. Four of those gifts were uncontroversial. The dispute concerned the fifth, made for the charitable purposes of “The Haven, Blackrock”. The executor, Martin Enda Marren, brought proceedings seeking directions on the identity of that beneficiary and, if the gift failed, whether it should be applied under the cy-près doctrine.
Masonic Havens Limited said it operated sheltered housing at Carrickbrennan Road, Monkstown, commonly called The Haven by members of the Masonic Order. Affidavits described the company’s charitable work and its committee, and addressed the late Dr Bertrand O’Flynn’s involvement in Masonic organisations. An An Post delivery manager also said that “The Haven, Blackrock” referred to the Monkstown property, which lies in Blackrock’s postal district. The court considered this evidence alongside evidence about the will’s instructions and drafting.
The judge found that the bequest showed a general charitable intention. He concluded that the affidavit evidence demonstrated an intention to benefit Masonic Havens Limited. The company, as the charitable corporate body, was therefore entitled to the bequest.
Because the court identified the intended beneficiary through the will and admissible extrinsic evidence, it said the gift did not lapse and the cy-près issue did not arise. It found no need for an order under section 47 of the Charities Act 1961 or to direct the Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests to exercise their statutory powers. The judgment did not determine the separate partial-intestacy questions raised in the evidence; it said those questions did not need to be considered.