The High Court discharged an anonymised man from wardship and appointed a decision-making representative to support decisions about his personal welfare and property and affairs.
In a ruling delivered on 8 May 2025, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the man lacked capacity in those areas even if a suitable co-decision maker were available. The judge said the medical evidence was uncontroverted.
The man, referred to as Mr N in the ruling, was admitted to wardship in 2020. He did not take part in the hearing and had declined to engage with the discharge process, despite encouragement. The judge said he had indicated that he wished to leave wardship and found no injustice in proceeding without his participation.
Two consultant psychiatrists concluded that he lacked capacity. A second assessment, sought after he disagreed with the first and his social worker considered that he might have some capacity in particular areas, reached the same conclusion. The second psychiatrist attributed the finding to the impact of autism spectrum disorder and recommended appointing a decision-making representative.
The court appointed Ms H, a registered social worker with 29 years’ clinical experience, to act as representative for personal welfare and property and affairs decisions. The judge noted the mental health service team’s view that a representative with a social work, social care or psychology background could be better placed to build the man’s trust.
The orders formally end the wardship and provide for the man’s affairs to be managed with the representative’s appointment. The court authorised the representative, through a bank account held in both their names and under her control, to receive assets held on the man’s behalf. She may also receive his Disability Allowance and must account to the Director of the Decision Support Service. The court accountant is to follow the payment schedule.
The representative, who was nominated from the statutory panel, is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses or remuneration from the man’s assets. The Circuit Court must review his capacity no later than three years from the ruling. The former committee may provide the representative with copies of the court papers and pleadings. No application for costs was made.