The Circuit Court found that JD lacked capacity to make decisions about the litigation he had brought over his late father’s estate, even if a suitable person were available to assist him. It appointed a decision-making representative for an initial six months, with the order to be reviewed at the end of that period.
The decision concerns only JD’s capacity for decisions in those proceedings. The judgment does not state that the court decided the inheritance claim itself or ordered any payment from the estate.
JD had instructed solicitors in early 2023 to bring a claim under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965, alleging that his father had failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for him. The court heard that negotiations had taken place towards a possible settlement, subject to court approval, but JD stopped communicating with his solicitors from late 2023. A hearing in the inheritance proceedings was approaching in late 2024.
JD’s treating consultant psychiatrist told the court that he had tried to explain the proceedings and the consequences of not engaging, including possible legal costs. The doctor’s opinion was that JD did not appear to understand those issues and, on the balance of probabilities, lacked capacity to weigh the relevant issues and consequences. The doctor said a formal assessment had not been possible because JD declined to discuss the case on three occasions.
An independent solicitor with specialist capacity-law experience also gave evidence. She said JD declined to meet her at hospital, but told her he did not trust anyone, did not want money and wanted people to leave him alone. The court dispensed with JD’s attendance, finding that his absence would not cause injustice because the independent solicitor represented his voice during the hearing.
The court applied the statutory presumption of capacity and the requirement to assess capacity in relation to the particular decision. It found, for the purpose of decisions about compromising or advancing the section 117 case, that JD did not sufficiently understand the proceedings or the consequences of not engaging. The court ordered a representative to be appointed with the assistance of the Decision Support Service for six months. The judgment does not name the representative or detail the terms of any later review.