The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by A, an adult man with Down syndrome, against a refusal to adjourn a wardship inquiry. It said admitting him to wardship at that stage could prevent him from marrying F and could leave him unable to pursue proceedings challenging the wardship regime and the marriage ban applying to wards.
The court gave its detailed reasons on 5 August 2020, after announcing its decision at the end of the appeal hearing on 10 March. The appeal concerned a decision by the then President of the High Court, Kelly P, on 4 February to refuse an adjournment of the inquiry, which was listed for 12 and 13 March. The Court of Appeal said its decision was subject to terms set out in an oral ruling on 10 March. It allowed A to pursue his proceedings at least until the High Court determined his application for a protective costs order.
The court did not decide whether A has capacity to marry, whether he should be made a ward, or the merits of his challenge. It said his marriage capacity was disputed and could not be determined in this appeal. It also stressed that its decision did not question the President’s powers to manage the wardship list or invite routine appeals from such decisions.
A’s care provider, S Ltd, considered that he needed the protection of wardship. His sister and brother supported that view and expressed concern that he was being exploited and could not make a free and informed decision to marry. The court acknowledged the weight of those welfare concerns.
The judgment said that, if A were made a ward under the existing law, the Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811 would prevent him from marrying F while he remained a ward. The court also found a real and significant risk that wardship could prevent him from continuing separate proceedings challenging the wardship regime and the 1811 Act. It said this could leave his right to marry without a hearing on his capacity.
A and F’s planned wedding had been stopped by an interim order made in June 2019, after S applied to the High Court on the eve of the wedding. The Court of Appeal criticised the timing and the ex parte process, saying orders of that kind should be made without hearing affected people only in exceptional circumstances of urgency and necessity. It also noted that interim orders remained in place, and that further orders could be sought if needed.
The court concluded that allowing the inquiry to proceed immediately risked serious injustice to A and F. It said the inquiry application could be renewed if circumstances changed significantly or A delayed in pursuing his proceedings.