The High Court has made orders overturning bequests to a Canadian "right to die" organisation which were included in the will of an Irish woman who committed suicide.
Rosemary Toole Gilhooly (49) of Ulverton Close, Dalkey, Co Dublin, died in a house in Donnybrook in January 2003.
It is alleged that an American right-to-die activist, Rev George Exoo, and an assistant, travelled to Ireland to be present when Ms Toole Gilhooly committed suicide.
Rev Exoo denies giving assistance but admits he was present when the woman, who suffered from depression, ended her life.
Yesterday's proceedings did not concern Rev Exoo but involved a Canadian activist, John Hofsess, of the Right to Die Network of Canada.
The application was brought by the three executors of Ms Toole Gilhooly's will who include James Gilhooly, senior counsel and estranged husband of Ms Toole Gilhooly.
In her will, Ms Toole Gilhooly stated she was leaving Mr Gilhooly 15 per cent of the residue of her estate, although he had renounced his legal share in a 1992 separation agreement.
The other executors of the will were Matthew and Ruth Ward of Cambridge Road, Rathmines, Dublin, who are also beneficiaries.
Ms Toole Gilhooly left a net estate valued at €627,113. In her will, she left certain items to named persons and willed 30 per cent of the remainder of her estate to her brother, Stephen Toole, Ontario, Canada.
The two controversial bequests of 5 per cent each were to the Compassionate Chaplaincy Foundation Ltd in West Virginia and to Evelyn Martens and John Hofsess, jointly of the Last Right Publications, Victoria, Canada. Waivers to the bequests were submitted on behalf of the US organisation and Evelyn Martens.
Mr Justice Clarke said the court had received an e-mail from Mr Hofsess in which he apologised for not attending, and said he could not afford lawyers. He asked the court to consider documents that he had submitted.
Mr Justice Clarke said it was a feature of Irish succession law that where a person willed a gift for a purpose rather than to an individual, that gift was only valid if its purpose was charitable as defined by Irish law.
It was possible some of the organisation's objectives might be regarded as potentially charitable but it was manifestly clear that its primary object appeared to be to seek a change in the law. The Canadian organisation could not be characterised as charitable as defined in Irish law, Mr Justice Clarke said.