The Court of Appeal has stayed a wardship inquiry concerning A. until the High Court decides a motion seeking protection from legal costs in separate proceedings. It set aside the President of the High Court’s refusal to adjourn the inquiry, but did not decide whether A. should be admitted to wardship or whether he has capacity to marry.
A., an adult man with Down Syndrome and a moderate learning disability, is the appellant. The judgment says medical evidence was unanimous that he met the criteria for wardship because he was incapable of managing his person or property. However, medical opinion differed on whether he had capacity to marry F., whose identity, like A.’s, is protected by a court order.
S. Limited, a registered charity providing services to A., began wardship proceedings in June 2019 and obtained an injunction preventing a proposed marriage between A. and F. The injunction remains in force. A. later brought plenary proceedings challenging the constitutional validity of legislation governing wardship and the Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811. He also seeks to compel commencement of part of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.
A motion for a protective costs order in those proceedings was due before the High Court in February 2020. A. asked to adjourn the wardship inquiry until that motion was determined. The President refused, directing that the inquiry proceed in March. A. appealed that refusal.
The Court of Appeal said the plenary proceedings were arguable and that admission to wardship would likely end A.’s ability to pursue them independently. Under the 1811 Act, the judgment said, a ward’s marriage is automatically void. The court considered that proceeding with the inquiry first risked substantially diminishing or eliminating A.’s access to the courts and ability to litigate the law affecting him.
It also found that the President had given insufficient weight to those consequences and had been materially misdirected on aspects of the evidence, including concerns about A.’s estate and an advocate’s account of A.’s wishes. The court said A.’s inheritance was held in a discretionary trust, with his siblings as trustees, and that the evidence cited about the advocate had later been corrected.
The stay is limited to the determination of the protective costs motion. A. undertook to continue existing interim orders, including the marriage injunction, and his counsel undertook to progress the motion promptly. S. and A.’s next of kin may apply to the High Court for further interim orders or directions concerning his welfare. The Court of Appeal remitted all other applications to the President of the High Court in wardship.