The Supreme Court has allowed Francis Dolan’s appeal against a High Court order directing a jury inquiry into whether he was of unsound mind and incapable of managing his person and property. The Court ordered the case returned to the President of the High Court to consider, before that inquiry, whether his compensation funds could be protected by another arrangement and whether that would be desirable.
The appeal arose from medical negligence proceedings brought on Dolan’s behalf by his mother and next friend. Those proceedings settled in 2001, with £3 million paid into court for his benefit. The funds were held on deposit under the Accountant General of the High Court. Dolan’s parents objected to wardship and proposed a trust involving them and a non-family trustee, with professional investment managers. The then President of the High Court had said he lacked jurisdiction to authorise that proposal.
The parents also objected to the terminology and procedures under the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871. In separate constitutional proceedings, Dolan and his parents challenged aspects of the wardship system. An application there to stop a Medical Visitor from visiting their home was unsuccessful. The High Court judge treated the President’s direction for a medical visit as a judicial act and said one High Court judge could not injunct another judge’s order. He also noted assurances that the family would have a hearing before any decision on wardship.
Geoghegan J. said the parents’ objections to wardship were persistent and arguable, and had not received sufficient attention in the procedural decisions. He held that wardship proceedings are proceedings of the High Court, where ordinary procedural steps can be used to have an issue heard in advance of the inquiry into capacity. He considered it fair and just to determine whether a trust or another supervised arrangement could protect the funds before that inquiry took place.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether an alternative arrangement was legally available or appropriate, whether Dolan should be made a ward of court, or whether he was incapable of managing his person and property. It left the formal wording of the preliminary issue to the President or a judge delegated by him, after submissions from relevant parties. It also asked that the Registrar of Wards of Court and the Office of the General Solicitor for Wards of Court investigate precedents. The Court said investment options for the funds pending determination should also be considered. It found no blameworthy delay by the parents in pursuing their procedural objections, while noting delay in the separate constitutional action.