The High Court discharged a man from wardship and appointed a decision-making representative to assist with decisions about his health, personal welfare, property and affairs.
In a ruling delivered on 10 April 2024, Mr Justice Heslin declared that the respondent lacked capacity to make decisions in those areas even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. The court appointed solicitor and mediator Alice Lanigan as his decision-making representative, or DMR, and ordered that his capacity be reviewed no later than three years from the order.
The application was brought under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015. The respondent was admitted to wardship in February 2020 after suffering a profound brain injury in a 2010 road traffic accident. The judgment said he required round-the-clock care and currently lived in a placement in the southeast; it did not identify the placement.
A consultant psychiatrist, identified in the ruling as Dr G., assessed the respondent on 31 May 2023. His report said the respondent could not understand, retain or weigh information about decisions in the relevant areas, or communicate decisions. The judge said the medical evidence was uncontroverted: the respondent had been notified of the discharge recommendations, and no second opinion had been sought. The ruling also referred to later reports describing the care at his placement as being to a very high standard.
The court said no suitable person had been identified to act as DMR, and approved Lanigan’s nomination. It discharged the respondent from wardship and remitted management of his affairs with the assistance of the DMR. The representative was authorised to receive his assets, including his disability allowance and assets held in the committee account with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice. The court also directed the Accountant to carry out the payment schedule.
The orders require the DMR to account to the Director of the Decision Support Service. The ruling records a draft-order note, “(CHECK),” beside the statutory reference for that requirement. The court also ordered that the professional DMR could not receive expenses or remuneration from the respondent’s assets. No costs were sought.
The court confirmed an order prohibiting publication likely to identify the respondent. His name is therefore withheld here.