The High Court discharged an anonymised woman in her 70s from wardship and appointed a decision-making representative to assist with decisions about her health, welfare and property and financial affairs.
In a ruling delivered on 21 June 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the woman lacked capacity in those areas even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. The court ordered that her capacity be reviewed no later than three years from the ruling.
The application was brought by the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court, which had been the woman’s committee in wardship for her person and estate. She had entered wardship in 2017 and had lived in a nursing home since 2015. The judgment said she had a diagnosis of dementia.
A consultant psychiatrist assessed her in October 2023 and reported in January 2024 that she had severe, permanent and progressive dementia, likely of mixed Alzheimer’s and vascular causes. The psychiatrist said she could not understand, retain, or use and weigh relevant information when making decisions about health and care, welfare, or property and finances. Her score on the Mini Mental State Examination was 9 out of 30. The judge said the medical evidence was uncontroverted.
An independent social worker reported that the woman was settled and appeared well cared for in the nursing home. He also concluded that she would require a court-appointed representative. The judgment said there appeared to be no suitable person willing or able to take on the role, and that the woman had no family involvement. A solicitor with experience advising older and vulnerable clients was nominated and approved as her representative.
The orders discharged the woman from wardship and placed the management of her affairs with the representative, subject to statutory duties to encourage her participation and consider relevant views. The representative may receive the application papers and manage the woman’s assets, including UK pensions, on her behalf. The court also ordered that the professional representative could not be paid or reimbursed from her assets.
The court prohibited publication likely to identify the woman. The applicant did not seek costs.