The High Court discharged a woman in her 80s from wardship and appointed a solicitor as her decision-making representative after finding she lacked capacity to make decisions about her personal welfare and property and affairs, even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the ex tempore ruling on 28 February 2024 under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015. The application was brought by the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court, who had been the woman’s committee for her person and estate. She had entered wardship on 13 January 2022 and was living in a residential care centre at the time of the application.
The judge relied on a consultant psychiatrist’s assessment dated 28 October 2023. The psychiatrist said the woman had dementia, described as permanent and evolving, and found that she could not understand, retain or weigh relevant information, or communicate a decision. The same conclusion was reached in relation to decisions about welfare and supports for daily living, as well as property and finances.
The court said reasonable efforts had been made to explain the process and ascertain the woman’s wishes, including whom she would want as her representative, but her condition made it impossible for her to engage. Her friend, identified in the ruling as Ms D, was unable to take on the role because of her age, distance from the woman and the demands of the position. The President had approved the nomination of Ms L, a qualified solicitor who advocates for people with disabilities. The judge said the appointment would not prevent Ms D from continuing to visit her friend.
The orders discharged the woman from wardship and remitted management of her affairs to her with the assistance of Ms L as decision-making representative. The representative was authorised to receive the woman’s assets and take steps to protect them and investigate any unidentified property. The court noted a possible UK NatWest account about which the committee had made enquiries but received no response. The representative must account to the Director of the Decision Support Service. She is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses or payment from the woman’s assets.
The court also directed the Circuit Court to review the woman’s capacity no later than three years from the order. The applicant sought no costs. The ruling also records that a section 27 order was made at the outset, without specifying its terms in the judgment.