The High Court has discharged B.H. from wardship and appointed her brother as her decision-making representative for decisions about her personal welfare and property and affairs.
In a ruling delivered on 31 October 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that B.H. lacked capacity in those areas even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. The court said the declaration followed unchallenged medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist who assessed her in January and February 2024. No second opinion was provided or requested.
The psychiatrist’s report said B.H. could not understand complex medical information, the value of money or how institutions are organised, and could not problem-solve or communicate reasoned decisions about health, welfare and finances. The report recommended a decision-making representative, while also saying B.H.’s views and will and preferences should be considered.
The court said B.H. had been admitted to wardship in December 2003 and had lived in long-term residential care since 2002. The application was brought by the committee of her person and estate. The judge was satisfied that service requirements had been met: the application was served personally, and its contents and implications were explained to B.H. in appropriate language with staff assistance. An affidavit reported that she was content with her brother being proposed for the role and did not object to the application.
The orders discharge B.H. from wardship and remit management of her affairs with her brother acting as decision-making representative. He may manage assets in the credit union accounts identified in the application, receive her disability allowance and take steps to protect her interest in a property share identified by a folio reference. He must account to the Director of the Decision Support Service. The order says he cannot be reimbursed from B.H.’s assets for expenses incurred in carrying out the role.
The Circuit Court must review B.H.’s capacity no later than three years from the order. The court also made reporting restrictions to protect her anonymity. No costs order was made because no application for costs had been brought.
The judge described the discharge from wardship as a significant day for B.H. and said the decision would not prevent her from continuing her day-to-day life in supported residential care.