Extending the High Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction to Protect Property of Non-Resident Persons with Diminished Capacity

1. Introduction

The case [AM] v Kiernan ([2025] IEHC 38) represents a significant ruling by the High Court of Ireland regarding the court’s ability to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to protect the property of individuals whose capacity is impaired—even when they reside outside the State. In this matter, the plaintiff [AM] sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and has since shown signs of diminished capacity, requiring the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem. The dispute centered on procedural and jurisdictional questions about administering a settlement fund that had been awarded to the plaintiff, who no longer resides in Ireland.

The Judgment addresses:

• The court’s capacity-based jurisdiction under both inherent powers and the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (“ADMA 2015”).
• The appointment and role of a Guardian ad Litem to safeguard the interests of a person of unsound mind “not so found.”
• Practical challenges when the individual requiring protection does not reside in Ireland.

The decision thus sheds light on how Irish courts may handle cases involving non-resident, vulnerable persons who have property interests within Ireland, and clarifies the procedural prerequisites before further orders can be sought.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Mark Heslin delivered the Judgment on January 15, 2025. The proceedings originated from a personal injuries claim brought by [AM], who was allegedly struck by the defendant’s motor vehicle in Dublin on July 27, 2020. Following protracted medical treatment and rehabilitation in Italy, the plaintiff has not resided in Ireland since.

A settlement of €190,000 was approved for the plaintiff under the designation of a “person of unsound mind not so found.” Subsequent to that approval, an issue arose regarding how best to protect the plaintiff’s property (the settlement funds) given the plaintiff’s apparent lack of capacity and non-residence in Ireland. The court had earlier directed that the settlement funds be paid into court, pending resolution of the capacity concerns and the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem.

Ultimately, the Judgment:

• Formally appointed a Guardian ad Litem for [AM], noting that the plaintiff’s cognitive impairments appeared long-term and sufficiently severe to warrant protection.
• Invited any party seeking further orders (e.g., protective measures, property management) to file a formal motion, along with detailed legal submissions clarifying the statutory or inherent jurisdiction being relied upon.
• Recognized that because [AM] has not resided in Ireland for a several-year period, the ADMA 2015’s residence requirements would need analysis in any subsequent application.
• Addressed the necessity of giving notice to all relevant parties, including the newly appointed Guardian ad Litem, before proceeding with additional protective orders.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

While this Judgment mentions no specific, published prior decisions by name, it draws from general High Court precedents recognizing the court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect the interests of individuals lacking capacity. The rationale for using inherent jurisdiction in such matters typically references earlier Irish High Court decisions that reaffirm the court’s protective role concerning vulnerable persons, even if legislation such as the ADMA 2015 does not neatly address every scenario.

Additionally, the Judgment references:

• Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (ADMA 2015): The court notes Section 4(1) and indicates the possible difficulty with the statutory requirement concerning residency within three years prior to the application. The ADMA 2015 sets forth formal procedures for decision-making supports for persons lacking capacity.
• Convention on the International Protection of Adults 2000: The ex parte docket references Article 10 of this Convention, indicating its relevance to cross-border capacity protection matters. Although Ireland’s national mechanisms for implementing the Convention remain important, the Judge underlines that the exact jurisdiction must be carefully demonstrated.

These references underscore the tension between the desire to protect non-resident, incapacitated individuals and the legal requirements (both domestic and international) that govern capacity, guardianship, and property protection.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Mr. Justice Heslin’s reasoning follows a structured approach:

1. Assessment of Capacity: The Justice emphasized the functional test of capacity, stating that a person must be able to understand, retain, weigh/use information, and communicate decisions. Citing the medical report from Professor Lynch, the Judgment concluded there was sufficient evidence of diminished understanding, memory deficits, and aphasia to affect [AM]’s ability to manage his own affairs. This triggered the potential for court intervention.
2. Inherent Jurisdiction Invocation: Recognizing legislative gaps—particularly regarding the plaintiff’s non-residency and the uncertainties around Section 4(1) of ADMA 2015—the Judge reaffirmed that the High Court retains inherent jurisdiction to take steps to protect a vulnerable individual’s property, especially funds awarded under court settlement.
3. Procedural Imperatives: The court stressed that any subsequent applications (e.g., to manage [AM]’s funds) must be made by formal motion, on notice to all relevant parties, including the newly appointed Guardian ad Litem. This ensures a thorough hearing of the issues, including any contest to the court’s authority and the appropriateness of the relief sought under statutory or inherent powers.
4. Appointment of the Guardian ad Litem: The court found that, given [AM]’s likely long-term impairment, appointing a Guardian ad Litem was both necessary and justified. A professional social worker, Ms. Keely, was deemed suitable, underscoring that the role calls for expertise in supporting an incapacitated person’s best interests.

3.3 Impact

This Judgment is poised to have significant impact, particularly in the following ways:

• Clarifying the Court’s Role: The High Court’s acknowledgment of its inherent jurisdiction to protect the property of a vulnerable adult who resides outside Ireland reaffirms the court’s readiness to fill legislative gaps. Practitioners must now consider invoking these inherent powers when dealing with cross-border capacity issues.
• Domestic and Cross-Border Implications: Where Irish assets or settlement liabilities exist, non-residency no longer bars a protective measure—provided the applicant can demonstrate that the court’s jurisdiction is engaged. This is particularly relevant when the applicant can point to the location of property within Ireland or other sufficient nexus.
• Further Guidance Needed: By inviting future legal submissions on jurisdiction, the court has signaled the necessity of precise argumentation. Counsel will need to carefully weigh both statutory and conventional bases. As capacity law evolves under the ADMA 2015 and international conventions, further judicial clarifications are likely.
• Guardianship and Capacity Procedures: The Judgment highlights the practical steps required—appointment of a Guardian ad Litem, introductions of formal motions, notice to interested parties—to secure protective orders and manage funds responsibly. This procedural pathway ensures fairness for all stakeholders, including incapacitated litigants.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several intricate legal concepts emerge in this ruling:

• Inherent Jurisdiction: Courts, particularly at the High Court level, have certain residual or “inherent” powers allowing them to act in the interests of justice even where statute law is silent or incomplete. In cases related to capacity, this means the court can step in to safeguard the interests of an incapacitated person.
• Guardian ad Litem: A Guardian ad Litem is an independent individual appointed by the court to represent and protect the interests of a party (often a minor or a person lacking capacity) in legal proceedings. Unlike a solicitor or a regular representative, a Guardian ad Litem typically scrutinizes what is in the vulnerable person’s best interests, making appropriate recommendations to the court.
• Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015: Irish legislation designed to reform capacity law, shifting away from wardship to a more rights-based approach. It introduces decision-making assistance agreements, co-decision-making, and other schemes. Notably, the Act imposes certain residency requirements, prompting complexity when a person lives outside the State.
• Article 10 of the Convention on the International Protection of Adults (2000): Seeks to establish uniform rules among signatory states regarding the jurisdiction to protect adults who lack capacity. Although valuable as a reference, exact implementation in Ireland requires further exploration of national legislation and how the Convention’s provisions are applied domestically.

5. Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in [AM] v Kiernan ([2025] IEHC 38) underscores a critical principle: the court’s inherent jurisdiction may extend to protect the property of an impaired person who is not domiciled in Ireland, where sufficient nexus—such as assets within Ireland—exists. By appointing a Guardian ad Litem, the court reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring robust protection of vulnerable parties, even amidst statutory residency complications.

In practical terms, this Judgment:

• Reiterates that litigants seeking the court’s protection for an incapacitated individual must present comprehensive evidence of incapacity and the necessity of a protective order.
• Requires formal motions on notice to all parties, ensuring procedural fairness and thorough judicial scrutiny.
• Highlights the interplay between inherent jurisdiction, national legislation (ADMA 2015), and international conventions on adult protection.

Going forward, practitioners must be prepared to marshal both statutory authority and inherent jurisdiction arguments when non-resident individuals with capacity issues need protection for their Irish-based assets. The case stands as a guiding light for future proceedings at the crossroads of personal injuries, cross-border jurisdictional questions, and the evolving landscape of capacity law.