The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Seán Dunne and four of his children concerning assets they said belonged to the Bloem Settlement, holding that an exclusive jurisdiction clause required the claims to be heard in the British Virgin Islands. In the alternative, it said the United States was clearly the more appropriate forum and that the case should be stayed in Ireland.
Mr Justice Conor Dignam delivered the judgment on 5 March 2025. The defendants had also sought dismissal on the basis that the claims were res judicata, meaning already decided. The judge said it was only necessary to consider that request if the other grounds failed; they did not. He did not decide whether the claims were res judicata.
The proceedings sought injunctions and declarations concerning the Bloem Trust, including who its beneficiaries and officeholders were and how its assets could be used. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had misused trust assets and sought, among other relief, a declaration that Yesreb Holdings Limited was encumbered to the trust for €14.25 million plus interest. These were pleaded claims, not findings made in this judgment.
The defendants relied on a deed naming the courts of the British Virgin Islands as the proper forum for the settlement. The plaintiffs argued that the clause did not apply to their claims and relied, among other points, on a separate settlement agreement’s Irish jurisdiction clause. The judge found that the current pleading expressly concerned the trust’s administration and that the relief sought arose from that administration. He held that the trust clause applied and that the plaintiffs could not enforce the separate settlement agreement because they were not parties to it. He also said the court had to decide jurisdiction on the existing pleading; even the proposed amended pleading would still concern trust administration.
The judge separately considered forum non conveniens, a rule allowing proceedings to be stayed where another forum is more appropriate. He pointed to the US courts’ extensive involvement in the bankruptcies and the dispute over Walford, a Dublin property whose sale proceeds were under the control of the US Bankruptcy Court through a trustee. A US jury had found in 2019 that Walford was fraudulently transferred; appeals were pending at the time of the hearing. The judge considered that deciding claims affecting the proceeds in Ireland could cut across US court decisions and orders. He found no sufficient reason that justice required the case to proceed in Ireland.
The court did not determine the parties’ disputed claims about ownership of Walford, Yesreb or trust assets. It also excluded specified affidavit material because publishing it would breach the in-camera rule. The operative result was that the proceedings were struck out for want of jurisdiction, with a stay granted as an alternative basis.