The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by F.D. over whether the High Court could approve a trust scheme to protect money he received in a personal injury settlement, before an inquiry into his capacity and without placing him in wardship.
The court said the High Court’s jurisdiction in mental incapacity matters came from statute. It held that the court could not use an inherent jurisdiction to sanction a trust outside the wardship process. The appeal concerned that legal question alone; it did not determine whether F.D. was capable of managing his person or property.
The money arose from a plenary action brought by F.D., initially as a minor through his mother and next friend. In October 2001, the High Court approved a settlement of IR£3 million and directed that the funds be paid into court for his benefit. An application to have him taken into wardship, which had been anticipated at the time, was not made then.
In 2004 and 2005, the High Court ordered that a jury inquiry be held into whether F.D. was of unsound mind and incapable of managing his person and property. His family objected and sought an alternative arrangement that would allow them reasonable control of the funds, subject to court supervision. A previous Supreme Court appeal led to a preliminary hearing on whether the High Court could establish such an arrangement before the capacity inquiry.
The High Court answered that question in the negative in July 2008. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Laffoy on 12 November 2015, upheld that ruling and dismissed the appeal. The order answering the preliminary question “in the negative” therefore remains in place.
The Supreme Court explained that an earlier decision, In re D, recognised a statutory protective jurisdiction that could include wardship where a person needed protection even without property. It did not establish an inherent power to create a trust. The court also said earlier trust arrangements and a practice direction allowing certain smaller sums to be paid to family members did not establish the claimed inherent jurisdiction. It expressed no view on the legality of the sixteen precedents examined in the case.
The court’s decision did not resolve the pending separate proceedings brought by F.D. and his parents against the Registrar, Ireland and the Attorney General. Nor did it decide the wardship inquiry or whether a trust would be desirable on the facts.