The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be categorised. It is the residual jurisdiction that the court can exercise independently of any statutory or common law power conferred upon it for the purposes of any particular proceedings.
A High Court judge sits in a variety of prerogative roles as devolved upon that court by the Crown. For example, search and freezing orders developed from the High Court assuming to itself an inherent jurisdiction (search orders are now statutory: Civil Procedure Act 1997 s 7). The court’s wardship or parens patriae jurisdiction over children is derived from its inherent jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal has an inherent jurisdiction to permit a person who has an interest in the outcome of any appeal to be joined as a party to the appeal: In re W (a Child) (Care Proceedings: Non Party Appeal) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140; [2017] 1 WLR 2415; [2017] 1 FLR 1629, at [34-35]:
“34 Dyson LJ went on to note that old Chancery practice had held that any person may appeal with the leave of the court if he could by any possibility have been made a party to the original action by service. Reference was also made to the availability of the inherent jurisdiction in this context: Warren v Uttlesford District Council [1996] COD 262 (Judge J).
35 Dyson LJ concluded his preliminary observations at para 12:
“It is common ground that this decision [Warren v Uttlesford District Council] correctly stated the law that was applicable pre-CPR. It is clear, therefore, that there could be rare circumstances where, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the court should permit a person who had an interest in the outcome of [the Town and Country Planning Act l990] section 287 proceedings to join the litigation so as to avoid an injustice to him. …”