Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court of Ireland’s judgment in Dunne [A Bankrupt] & Ors v Dunne & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 120, delivered on March 5, 2025. The case involves a complex dispute centering on competing jurisdictional arguments arising from a trust arrangement — the Bloem Settlement — and subsequent transfer of a family property known as “Walford”. The proceedings feature multiple parties, including family members and corporate defendants. Key issues incorporate the application of an exclusive jurisdiction clause embedded within the trust documents, the concept of forum non conveniens concerning the “natural” forum for resolution, and related considerations regarding res judicata and international comity.

At its core, the judgment deliberates whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters that primarily relate to the administration of the Bloem Settlement, when contractual trust instruments specify that the British Virgin Islands should serve as the exclusive forum. The case is further complicated by parallel proceedings before U.S. courts and issues concerning asset transfers during bankruptcy proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

In a detailed and layered decision, the High Court concluded that it did not possess jurisdiction over the claims brought by the plaintiffs. The decision pivots on two main findings:

• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: The court found that the Bloem Settlement contains an unequivocal exclusive jurisdiction clause. Despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the dispute did not solely concern the “administration” of the trust, the pleadings explicitly indicate that the underlying claims relate to the management and disbursement of trust assets. Consequently, the clause mandates that any dispute must be resolved under the laws and courts designated – namely, those of the British Virgin Islands.
• Forum Non Conveniens: Even when considering the alternative ground of forum non conveniens, the judgment explained that the U.S. courts, already engaged with similar issues (including a prior fraudulent transfer finding), are the more appropriate forum. Factors such as the extensive U.S. bankruptcy proceedings, the location of key assets, and principles of comity of courts further supported this conclusion.

On the basis of these findings – and acknowledging that the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) was deemed inapplicable – the court held that the proceedings in Ireland should be either struck out or stayed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced legal authorities to underpin its reasoning:

• Lewin on Trusts: This authoritative text was pivotal in establishing that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in trust instruments is binding on beneficiaries and other parties connected to the trust. The court highlighted passages from Lewin on Trusts that reinforced the principle that the parties must be held to the agreed forum, even when disputes extend beyond a narrow interpretation (e.g., solely “administrative” issues).
• Case Law on Forum Non Conveniens: The decision cited cases such as Abama v Gama Construction Ireland [2011] IEHC 308 and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn [2016] 3 IR 197 to illustrate the practical factors that influence the determination of the “most real and substantial connection” test. The judgment noted that convenience, expense, applicable law, and the location of material evidence and proceedings were key factors backing the transfer of jurisdiction.
• International Comity: The case discussed principles from decisions such as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v Warner Lambert Company [2009] 4 IR 584, underscoring that a decision in one jurisdiction should be accorded respect by another unless there is a compelling reason to deviate.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning was methodical and uncompromising. The key components of its analysis include:

• Interpretation of the Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: The court examined the language of the relevant trust instruments, notably the Deed of the 30th November 2013, and determined that use of the definitive language (“shall be the proper forum” and reference to a singular definite article) created an unequivocal obligation. Although the plaintiffs argued the clause was limited to “administration,” the pleadings themselves demonstrated that the dispute – involving injunctive relief, declarations, and claims of breach of trust – unambiguously questioned the trust’s administration.
• Addressing the Plaintiffs’ Alternate Theories: The plaintiffs attempted to frame the dispute either as a matter of public policy or an interference with constitutional rights. However, the court rejected these proposals, emphasizing that the claims advanced – such as requests for injunctions and declarations regarding self-dealing and asset disposition – fundamentally arise from the duty inherent in administering the trust.
• Forum Non Conveniens Evaluation: In its assessment, the court balanced multiple practical factors: the bankruptcy proceedings in the United States, the prior adjudications and jury verdict in U.S. court on the fraudulent transfer of the property, and the fact that key assets, like the proceeds from the sale of Walford, are under the control of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. These factors lent strong support to the conclusion that the U.S. jurisdiction was clearly more appropriate for resolving the core issues.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment is likely to have significant implications for both trust administration disputes and jurisdictional challenges in international litigation:

• Enforcement of Choice of Jurisdiction Clauses: The ruling reinforces the enforceability of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in trust instruments, even when disputes stretch into broad claims. Future litigants will need to carefully assess the drafting of trust documents and ensure that any alterations (e.g., amendments identifying new governing law or forum) are clear regarding the scope of disputes covered.
• Clarification on the “Administration” Test: By scrutinizing the substance of the claims, rather than relying solely on label or argument, the court set a precedent that challenges opposing parties to demonstrate a genuine separation between administrative functions and asset or trust management disputes.
• Guidance on Forum Non Conveniens: The detailed consideration of practical and comity factors (including ongoing proceedings abroad) provides valuable guidance for courts later confronted with similar multi-jurisdictional issues. It emphasizes that overlapping proceedings in different jurisdictions may be remanded if a foreign forum shows a stronger connection to the case’s core issues.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts in this judgment warrant clarification:

• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: This is a contractual provision in which parties agree that any disputes relating to the trust must be resolved in a particular court or legal system; in this case, the courts of the British Virgin Islands.
• Forum Non Conveniens: A legal principle where a court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction if another forum is clearly more appropriate for the resolution of the dispute. It involves a balancing of factors such as convenience, cost, and connection to the matter at hand.
• Res Judicata: A principle that prevents the same dispute from being re-litigated once it has been finally adjudicated. The plaintiffs argued that some issues were already decided in the U.S., but the court found these arguments inapplicable given the distinct nature of the claims under the trust’s administration.
• International Comity: This refers to the mutual recognition and respect that courts in different jurisdictions accord to each other’s decisions, so as not to undermine judicial efficiency and fairness in global disputes.

Conclusion

In summary, the High Court’s judgment in the Dunne case underscores a rigorous adherence to the principle that parties are bound by the exclusive jurisdiction clauses they agree to in their trust arrangements. Despite the plaintiffs’ attempts to distance their claims from trust administration and to invoke alternative legal arguments, the court determined that the substance of the claims falls squarely within the ambit of the trust’s governing provisions. Furthermore, by affirming that the U.S. courts – where significant related proceedings are pending – provide a more appropriate forum, the judgment sends a clear signal about the limits of Irish jurisdiction in complex international insolvency and trust disputes.

This ruling is significant for future cases involving multi-jurisdictional disputes over trust administration and bankruptcy proceedings. It reinforces the contractual sanctity of designated forums and offers detailed practical guidance on balancing competing legal and procedural interests. Ultimately, the decision serves as a potent reminder for legal practitioners to ensure clarity in drafting jurisdictional provisions and to consider the worldwide implications of cross-border litigation.