The High Court has refused Edmund Burke permission to pursue judicial review of a Decision Support Service finding concerning his two brothers' conduct as attorneys for their mother.
Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty ruled on June 12 that Burke had challenged the wrong decision and, in any event, the case was moot following his mother's death. The court found there was no issue of exceptional public importance sufficient to justify deciding a dispute in which no effective statutory remedy remained.
Burke's mother had executed an enduring power of attorney in November 2021 appointing his two brothers as attorneys. It was registered by the Wards of Court Office in January 2024.
In April 2024, Burke complained to the Decision Support Service alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by his brothers. His complaint concerned aspects of their mother's care and financial decisions involving Burke and two properties.
The service investigated and ultimately decided in October 2024 that the complaint was not well founded. Burke appealed to the Circuit Court, which dismissed the case in July 2025 as moot because his mother had died and no effective remedy could then be granted.
The High Court said that once Burke had used the statutory appeal process, the Circuit Court's decision superseded the earlier administrative decision. His judicial review proceedings challenged only the Decision Support Service decision rather than the later Circuit Court ruling.
The judge also rejected Burke's argument that the legislation could operate retrospectively to undo his brothers' appointment or invalidate earlier actions. Section 76 of the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act 2015 allowed a court to determine that an attorney should “no longer” act, meaning a prospective remedy only.
As their mother's death had already ended the brothers' roles as attorneys, sending the complaint back for reconsideration would achieve nothing. Leave for judicial review was therefore refused.