Neutral Citation: [2013] NICh 17	Ref:     	BUR9051	
 			
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down	Delivered:	19/11/2013	
(subject to editorial corrections)*			

203 No. 45542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
 _______

CHANCERY DIVISION
 _______ 

IN THE MATTER OF WINIFRED MARY WAUGH DECEASED
 _________

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 29 OF THE CHARITIES ACT 
(NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
 ________

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Plaintiff;
-and-

1. CORA BLAKELY WATSON AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WINIFRED MARY WAUGH DECEASED
2. ALFRED STANLEY GORDON WATSON AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WINIFRED MARY WAUGH DECEASED
3. THE DEPARTMENT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
4. WAVELENGTH CHARITY LIMITED
5. BRYSON CHARITABLE GROUP
6. THE CHARITY COMMISSION

Noticed Parties.
 _________ 

BURGESS J

[1]	This application was made by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland pursuant to section 29 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 seeking inter alia:

(a)	Directions as to whether the true construction of the Will of Winifred Mary Waugh (‘the deceased’) dated 27 February 1986 (‘the Will’), the share of residue given to “… The Wireless for the Bedridden Society (Belfast Branch) …” (‘the Share’) is a gift to Wavelength Charity Limited (‘Wavelength’) or a gift to Radio and Television for the Housebound (‘RATH’).

(b)	In the event that the Share is a gift to RATH, directions as to whether there is a partial intestacy in respect of the Share, or whether the Share falls to be applied to charitable purposes.

(c)	In the event that the Share falls to be applied to charitable purposes, that the court determine whether the Share should be disposed of by the Court by way of scheme, or under the prerogative powers pursuant to the Royal Sign Manual.

(d)	Direction as to whether an administrative trust for sale is sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction.

[2]	By the Will the deceased, after making certain specific legacies, bequeathed the residue of her estate into 13 equal shares to a number of charitable institutions including “The Wireless for the Bedridden Society (Belfast Branch) …”.  

[3]	At the date of the making of the Will there existed an entity known as “The Wireless for the Bedridden Society”, and it had a branch in Belfast.  

[4]	Whilst initially there was a misunderstanding on the part of the sixth Noticed Party, Bryson Charitable Group (‘Bryson’), that they were administering the undertaking formerly carried on by the Belfast Branch of The Wireless for the Bedridden Society, by the time the matter came for hearing before me the position had clarified.  I was able to determine –

(a)	That at the time of the making of the Will RATH was an entity then in existence.

(b)	Also at the time of the making of the Will the entity known as Wireless for the Bedridden Society was also in existence – clearly as a separate entity and in no way connected to RATH.

(c)	In 1990 RATH transferred the service provided by it to Wireless for the Bedridden, together with all of its assets.

(d)	In due course, before the death of the deceased, Wireless for the Bedridden changed its name to Wavelength.

(e)	At the time of deceased’s death in 1992 RATH had been dissolved, although in later years no one in Bryson appeared to be aware of that.  That was apparent from the fact that at a meeting on 20 March 1997 representatives of Bryson resolved to continue the business of RATH.  It was on the basis of this misunderstanding that during the course of the proceedings, but before the hearing before me, Bryson believed they were entitled to the Share.

[5]	In those circumstances therefore I indicated at the hearing on 18 October 2013 that I was satisfied that the Share was bequeathed to RATH, as the successors to the business and undertaking of Wireless for the Bedridden Society, and for the sake of completeness that the fact that the words “Belfast Branch” were included in the Will did not in any way adversely affect the right of Wavelength (the now name of Wireless for the Bedridden Society) to the Share.  

[6]	It was agreed between the parties that by this determination there was no requirement for me therefore to deal with the issues set out in paragraph [1] above at sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (e).  

[7]	Nevertheless some parties asked the court to consider the arguments which had been prepared and contained in skeleton arguments from all parties to decide these latter issues, to afford a determination since the Will was drafted in a manner common to many such wills in Northern Ireland.
 
[8]	I indicated that since the arguments had been prepared I was prepared to hear argument in relation to these matters, but reserved my position as to whether it was appropriate for me to move to make such a decision.  I can understand the wishes of all interested parties that an authoritative decision to be made to deal in the future with such matters of wills drafted in this way.  But the determinative word is “authoritative”.

[9]	The role of the courts is to decide disputes between parties, and to grant remedies.  Where a decision sought would by definition not be part of the ratio decidendi of the case, it would not constitute an authoritative decision – indeed by definition it is inconsequential.  

[10]	Accordingly, any decision I would come to could not be regarded as authoritative even if, likely or unlikely, it may carry some persuasive weight.  However, since the issue is moot, there would be no possibility of the decision in the context of this case being amenable to appeal.  

[11]	The court takes some comfort in the fact that the parties interested in this issue are not left without remedy.  If as is stated this form of will is common, then there is the real potential of a case arising when a decision would be part of the ratio decidendi and carry the authoritative weight of the court – either at first instance if there is no appeal, or by the Appellate Court in the event of an appeal.

[12]	In those circumstances therefore, while the court is grateful to counsel for the obvious industry that has been displayed in the skeleton arguments, it declines to give a ruling in relation to these.  It draws some comfort from the fact that with the research that has been carried out, when the appropriate case comes to be decided, much if not all of the ground work will have been completed.