In the Matter of N, A Ward of Court, and in the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act

THE HIGH COURT WARDS OF COURT [2026] IEHC 209 [WOC 2233] IN THE MATTER OF N, A WARD OF COURT, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 55 OF THE ASSISTED DECISION-MAKING (CAPACITY) ACT RESPONDENT Ex Tempore Ruling of Mr. Justice Mark Heslin delivered on the 23rd day of March 2026 Introduction 1. I want to express my thanks to the current committee, Ms. [L] and Mr. [M], for their presence today. This application is about the discharge from wardship of Mr. [N] and, for the purposes of this short ruling, I will refer to Mr. [N] as the “respondent”. The 2015 Act 2. As we are all aware, the Act which ‘underpins’ today's application is the 2015 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, which I will refer to as the “2015 Act”. Absence of respondent (s. 139) 3. The ‘default’ position, in light of s.139 of the 2015 Act, would be for the presence of the respondent, but I am satisfied that no injustice can arise by proceeding in his absence, given the evidence concerning his inability to participate in any meaningful way; the efforts to ascertain his views; and the fact that participation was facilitated. Certain facts 4. As to certain basic facts, the respondent is a gentleman born in 1956 with a lifelong learning disability and he communicates using words only to a very limited extent. He was admitted to wardship as long ago as 1985 and his sister and brother-in-law Ms. [L] and Mr. [M] are his joint 2 committee in wardship. I also note that the respondent has lived for many years in a residential care setting where he receives necessary support and assistance. Medical evidence (ss. 2 and 3) 5. The application, today, is based or ‘grounded’ on an affidavit sworn by Ms. [L]. Of particular relevance is that it refers to medical evidence in the form of a report dated 25 November 2025 and a 9 December 2025 addendum report by Dr. [O]. 6. Consistent with the provisions of s.3 of the 2015 Act, Dr. [O] carried out a functional assessment of the respondent's capacity to make decisions in relation to his ‘personal welfare’ and his ‘property and affairs’, both of which terms are defined in s.2 of the 2015 Act. 7. Dr. [O] came to the view that the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both his personal welfare and his property and affairs, even if the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker were made available to him and no issue has been taken with this medical evidence by or on behalf of the respondent. Necessity and proportionality (s.8) 8. It is also important to note that Dr. [O]’s opinion regarding the respondent's lack of capacity did not exclude any decision or decisions which might fall under the heading of either personal welfare or property and affairs decision-making. Nor is it said that any decision would be unnecessary to be made going forward. I make that point from the perspective of the principle of proportionality and the ‘guiding principles’ in s. 8 of the 2015 Act, in other words, the proposition that this Court should not make orders which go further than is necessary. However, as I say, there is no decision which, according to Dr. [O], the respondent would have capacity to make, even with assistance. Service on the respondent 9. In addition to Ms. [L]’s affidavit, I also have the benefit of an affidavit of service sworn by Mr. Eoin Craven, solicitor, on 10 March 2026. Given the facts averred to, i.e. facts sworn to be correct, I am satisfied that service was properly effected; that appropriate efforts were made to try and explain the nature of today's application; and that appropriate efforts were made to try and ascertain the respondent’s views. 10. However, in the manner averred, this was not possible, in circumstances where the respondent did not engage in any meaningful way. Suitable persons (S.38) 11. Whilst it was not possible to ascertain the respondent’s views, both members of the joint committee are aware of the role and obligations of a decision-making representative, (or “DMR”), and both have provided signed declarations of suitability in the context of s.38 of the 2015 Act. 3 Assets 12. I note the position in relation to the respondent’s assets, a schedule of which is exhibited and, in objective terms, these are relatively straightforward. Declaration 13. In light of the evidence before me, in particular, the uncontroverted medical evidence, I am making the following declaration. I am declaring, pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act, that the respondent, Mr. [N], lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both his ‘personal welfare’ and his ‘property and affairs’ even if the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker were made available to him. Orders 14. Given the evidence before me, all of which I carefully considered in advance of sitting today, I am satisfied that it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to make orders reflecting the draft which has been provided. 15. To summarise in ‘headline’ terms, the first order I am making is under an Act called the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. I am making an order under s.27 of that Act prohibiting the publication or broadcast of any matter relating to these proceedings which would or might identify Mr. [N] as someone suffering from a medical condition. 16. I am formally ordering that Mr. [N] be discharged from wardship and remitted to the management of his affairs with the appointment of suitable persons as his decision-making representatives, or “DMRs”. 17. On the evidence, the joint committee members are entirely suitable, and I am appointing both Ms. [L] and Mr. [M] as DMRs for Mr. [N], to act jointly and severally in the areas of both personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making. 18. Given the medical evidence to the effect that there is no decision for which Mr. [N] has capacity, even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker, the appointment of the DMRs is in relation to all decisions falling under the heading of property and affairs. That said, I have no difficulty including the specific decisions which are in the draft, which for the reasons given, comprise a non- exclusive list of the DMRs’ decision-making powers. 19. This non-exclusive list includes the making of healthcare decisions; the custody, control and management of the relevant person’s finances; the carrying out of any contract entered into by the relevant person; the custody, control and management of the relevant persons property; the exchange, charging or other disposition of the relevant persons property; the making of an application for housing, social welfare or other benefits; or otherwise protecting or advancing the interests of the relevant person in those matters. Equally a non-exclusive list of decisions under the 4 heading of personal welfare is set out from (a) to (h) of the draft and I am happy to include those in today’s order. 20. The respondent is entitled to the return of his assets. To address practicalities, I will make an order that the DMRs be authorised to take custody, control and management of the accounts of Mr. [N]. 21. For the avoidance of doubt, the DMRs are authorised to open any further accounts as may be necessary to properly manage the property and affairs of the respondent. 22. I will order that the respondent, Mr. [N], receive his Department of Social Protection entitlements, directly, with this arrangement is to be reviewed by the DMRs within twelve months. 23. Reflecting the provisions of s.46(6), the DMRs are to account to the director of the Decision Support Service in relation to all dealings with the property and affairs of the respondent. 24. The respondent's capacity is to be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the making of today’s orders and I will also direct that Dr. [O]’s functional capacity assessment be released to the Circuit Court in that regard. 25. Ms. [L] swore the grounding affidavit, but I will make an order that both DMRs are entitled to receive a copy of the court booklet. 26. Understanding that a legal aid certificate has been issued, I will make no order as to costs. In conclusion 27. It is clear from the papers before me that Mr. [N] is receiving great care so that he can live as comfortable and happy a life as possible in an environment meeting his needs. 28. I see that Mr. [N] particularly enjoys music, that he goes with staff to music-therapy sessions, and he is also accompanied by staff to enjoy meals in a restaurant. 29. I want to assure him that nothing is going to change day-to-day as a result of the decisions made by this Court. 30. He will continue to have the support of carers in a residence in which he has lived happily for many years. 31. He will continue to have the support of his sister and brother-in-law, to whom I am grateful. They are now taking on, formally, the role of his decision-making representatives and I want to wish them the very best in discharging that role. 5 32. Finally, I want to send this Court’s best wishes to Mr. [N] and all those involved in supporting him day to day.