The High Court has discharged a man from wardship and appointed his sister and niece as decision-making representatives for his health, personal welfare and financial affairs.
In an ex tempore ruling on 24 June 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared that the man lacked capacity to make decisions in those areas even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. He ordered that his sister and niece act jointly and severally as decision-making representatives, and that he be remitted to the management of his affairs with their assistance.
The application was brought by his sister under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. The man, born in 1967, had been admitted to wardship in February 1987. The judgment says he has a mild intellectual disability and profound deafness following a serious accident when he was young.
A consultant psychiatrist assessed him in August 2023 and concluded that he could not understand, retain, or use and weigh information to make decisions about health, welfare or property and finances. That evidence was uncontested. The judge said the man had been notified of the application and invited to attend the hearing, but declined. The court found that proceeding in his absence respected his expressed wish.
The sister told the court that she had made decisions with her brother during his wardship and that he was happy for her and her daughter to continue jointly and severally. The niece said she had assisted her mother with his affairs, knew his wishes and was willing and able to serve. The ruling records that the man received support in his accommodation and described activities including daily swimming and cinema visits.
The court also ordered reporting restrictions, authorised the representatives to receive his assets subject to providing details of a joint account in their names and his, and directed them to account to the Decision Support Service. The Accountant of the Courts of Justice was directed to carry out the payment schedule. The court ordered a review of capacity by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the order. The sister’s costs are to be adjudicated if not agreed.
The ruling does not identify the man, his sister or his niece by name in the published text.