119. […] The court, as I said earlier, has the right to intervene to protect a vulnerable adult from the risk of future harm – the risk of future abuse or exploitation – as long as there is a real possibility . of such harm. An application for annulment of a decision of inherent jurisdiction should be made only if no error on the part of the court is alleged (except in the circumstances referred to in Rule 18.11). If a court error is alleged, an application for leave to appeal under Part 30 should be considered. The grounds on which an inherent decision on jurisdiction may be annulled are and remain within the competence of the decisions. The reasons may be: (i) fraud; (ii) material non-disclosure; (iii) certain limited types of errors; (iv) a fundamental change in circumstances that undermines the basis on which the order was made; and (v) the best interests of the child so require. The court may, within the limits of its inherent jurisdiction, in addition to any orders that may be made in family proceedings, make a wide range of child protection orders, the most common of which are: The fact that the court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to create a basis for the dissolution of an association without legal personality, has only limited applicability in relation to the substantive area of law, but the fact that the Tribunal relied on its inherent jurisdiction to create a basis for the dissolution of an unincorporated association. Based on the views of the majority of its members, is a good example of how a party can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to achieve an equitable outcome. It also shows how the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be used as a residual source of power, which can be used if necessary if it is fair and equitable. It should therefore be noted that, where procedural or substantive law may contain a gap in the clear power of the courts to state reasons for an act, inherent jurisdiction may need to be invoked to achieve the objective. Of course, inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner that conflicts with the law or rule. Since this is a special and exceptional power, it must be exercised sparingly and in a clear case.

106. In my view, it is worth asking what G`s situation would have been if she had been a child and not an adult at all relevant times. […] The High Court may, within its inherent jurisdiction, grant protection to “vulnerable adults”, in some cases also to adults with disabilities. However, inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to compel a person capable of giving consent, but who is in need of protection, to do or not to do something that he or she has decided or not after careful consideration; Competence serves to facilitate “the process of unfettered decision-making” by those who are “free from any external pressure or physical constraint in decision-making”. (paragraph 9.80) In Dunne v. Mahon,(2) Hogan J. of the High Court exercised his inherent jurisdiction to ensure that a fair and reasonable decision was made with respect to the dissolution of an unincorporated club, Roadstone Group Sports Club. The club was founded in 1957 and was formed for the benefit of employees working with a subsidiary. At the time of the hearing, the club was located on 6.7 acres of land and housed a large pavilion, various courts, a putting field, a large event hall, a bar and a restaurant. Full club membership was open to employees of the company, while associated membership was open to those who were not employees of the company.

At the end of 2010, there were 349 associate members, 53 full members, one honorary member and two life members. Although the court found that the club`s finances were on a sound financial footing, the Grievor asserted that membership had permanently declined and sought dissolution. In the end, the association`s constitution contained no provision for amendment and was originally silent on what would happen to the association`s assets in the event of dissolution. Therefore, all of these questions had to be asked of Hogan as part of the motion to dissolve the club. 121 […] I am convinced that, although South Africa has now reached the age of majority, it needs an element of continued protection from the court with respect to the particular issue of marriage. Most judgments affirming the High Court`s inherent jurisdiction over vulnerable adults focus on matters relating to marriage, personal relationships and residence. [6] A Local Authority v A was the first case in which inherent jurisdiction over medical treatment (contraception) was invoked. Prior to the introduction of the MCA, the means available to the High Court to intervene in the life of a mentally disabled adult were within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Inherent jurisdiction is an English common law doctrine that a superior court has jurisdiction to hear any matter referred to it, unless a statute or rule limits that power or grants exclusive jurisdiction to another court or tribunal.

According to Canadian jurisprudence, the most important limitation in the application of inherent jurisdiction is that doctrine cannot be used to derogate from an existing statute or rule. The clearest statement of such a restriction is found in the Supreme Court of Canada`s decision in College Housing Co-operative Ltd. v. Baxter Student Housing Ltd. (1976), which dealt with the question of whether a judge had exceeded his or her jurisdiction to determine that the mortgagee should take precedence over other fees and charges. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that a court cannot deny the unequivocal expression of legislative intent and added that: The SA was found fit to marry. Justice Munby invoked the court`s inherent jurisdiction to grant protection to South Africa as a vulnerable adult. In Nova Scotia, on the other hand, the Code of Civil Procedure is published by judges of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal under section 46 of the Judicature Act. The Attorney General is not involved in their creation and they are not subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that a single judge of the court may use the inherent jurisdiction of the court to administer its own proceedings. The provisions of the MCA replaced the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in the case of mentally handicapped persons.

However, the High Court has gradually extended the application of inherent jurisdiction to the category of vulnerable adults – adults who have capacity but still need protection for certain reasons.