A mistake over the first name of the beneficiary of an apartment left in a woman’s will does not prevent the property going to that person, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Michael White found Barbara Black was the intended beneficiary of the apartment at Sydney Parade Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin, although she was mistakenly referred to as “Rosemary Black” in the will of retired civil servant Eileen Curtin.

Ms Curtin died in February 2015 and Ms Black is a daughter of Ms Curtin’s niece, Maureen Black, nee Curtin.

The judge rejected arguments by Family Solidarity, a group promoting Christian values which benefited from another part of Ms Curtin’s will, that extrinsic evidence claiming the apartment was meant for Barbara Black did not indicate the deceased’s intention.

Family Solidarity said that evidence, provided by Ms Black’s parents and Ms Curtin’s solicitor, was inadmissible. It also argued, if the evidence was admissible, it was insufficient to allow the property go to Ms Black.

Maureen Black, Beechpark Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin, had sought to have the evidence admitted to ascertain the true intention of the deceased. She said she has three daughters, Barbara, Nicola and Jennifer, and never had a daughter called Rosemary.

Maureen Black said her aunt Eileen was unmarried with no children and lived in the Sandymount apartment and visited her family on many occasions. She was particularly fond of Barbara, the only one of the three still living at home in 2014.

Barbara and Eileen were able to converse in French and had a “close rapport”, Mrs Black said.

While Eileen was normally a careful and fastidious person, Mrs Black believed she had inadvertently referred to Barbara as Rosemary.

Mrs Black’s husband Victor also recalled a conversation with Eileen in which she said she wanted to leave the apartment to Barbara because the other two daughters were married and “well looked after”.

Brian Whitaker, Ms Curtin’s solicitor, said Ms Curtin had in August 2013 handed him a copy of the first page of her previous will, made in 2011, in which she had made a number of handwritten amendments in pencil.

He said Ms Curtin told him she had decided the apartment should go to one of Mrs Black’s daughters, rather than another relative she had previously bequeathed it to because that person was “well off” and was, in any event, getting a one-third share of her life policy proceeds.

Liam O’hAlmhain, chairman of Family Solidarity, said another clause in the will left €10,000 to Barbara and referred to her by her correct name. This raised a significant question regarding the construction sought by Mrs Black on the apartment bequest, he said.

There did not appear to be any corroborative independent evidence of what Ms Curtin meant when she identified “Rosemary Black” and there was no contemporaneous note recording the instructions she gave prior to drafting the new will, Mr O’hAlmhain said.

Two other organisations which were left bequests, the Anne Sullivan Foundation for Deaf/Blind and the Harold’s Cross Hospice, had said they would abide by the direction of the court while Mrs Black’s other two daughters agreed with their mother’s interpretation.

Mr Justice White said it was obvious Ms Curtin intended to leave the apartment to a specific person, the daughter of her niece and did not intend it to be part of the residual estate under which the three organisations benefited.