The High Court ruled that the 2001 will of author and broadcaster Dr John O’Donohue was void for uncertainty, so his estate fell into intestacy and passed under statutory rules to his mother.
Mr Justice Gilligan found that the handwritten will, made without legal advice, revoked an earlier will from 1998, despite having no express revocation clause. Its direction to leave “all my worldly possessions” to his mother, to be divided “equally & fairly among my family”, was broad enough to displace the earlier document.
The court was asked to resolve questions about the will’s construction in proceedings brought by Josephine (otherwise Josie) O’Donohue, the deceased’s mother and administratrix of his estate. Her proposed interpretation treated the will as creating a trust: the family would share the estate, while other named people would receive gifts of money, with smaller gifts for a further group.
The judge said the will’s wording did not establish how the gifts to those groups should be quantified or how they related to the family’s share. It also directed “special care and extra help” for O’Donohue’s sister, apparently conflicting with the instruction to divide the estate equally and fairly among the family.
The court considered whether it could remove or alter words to make the proposed arrangement work. It concluded that doing so would go beyond interpreting the will and would amount to remaking it. The judge also rejected the proposed “hybrid trust” interpretation, which had not been supported by legal authority.
The judgment held that the will was valid under section 78 of the Succession Act 1965 and revoked the 1998 will, but its terms were void for uncertainty. The entire estate therefore fell into intestacy. Applying section 68 of the Act, the court said the deceased’s mother takes the entire estate. It made no findings on the other questions raised in the special summons because they were no longer necessary to decide.
The estate’s net value was stated in an Inland Revenue affidavit to be more than €2 million. The judgment does not set out a distribution of specific assets or make further orders concerning the other named beneficiaries.