In the Matter of F, 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 242 [WOC 9694] IN THE MATTER OF F, 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. Ms. [F] is most welcome here today for the hearing of an application about her leaving Wardship. The Act we are concerned with is called the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act of 2015, which I will call the “2015 Act”. Certain facts 2. I can see from the evidence that Ms. [F], whom I will call the “respondent”, was born in 1977 and her diagnoses include moderate intellectual disability as well as epilepsy. I note that she was admitted to Wardship in 2019, with her first cousins Ms. [G], Mr. [H] and Ms. [I] making up her joint committee in Wardship. I also note that for many years the respondent has lived in a residential care setting to receive necessary support and assistance in particular from [named] formerly [named]. It is plain from the evidence and from what I can see before me in court that the respondent derives great support from her joint committee. Respondent’s capacity (s.2 and 3) 3. Today’s application is based, or ‘grounded’, on an affidavit sworn by Ms. Julia Hull, solicitor, on 6 March 2026. Of particular relevance is the medical evidence which Ms. Hull refers to. That is in the form of a report, dated 9 December 2025, by Dr. [J] who is both a consultant psychiatrist and a general practitioner. In accordance with s.3 of the 2015 Act, Dr. [J] carried out a functional 2 assessment of the respondent's capacity to make decisions regarding her “personal welfare” and her “property and affairs”, both of which terms are defined in s.2 of the 2015 Act. 4. Dr. [J] came to the view that the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to both her personal welfare and her property and affairs, even if the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker were made available to her. No issue has been taken with this medical evidence by, or on behalf of, the respondent. Without exception 5. It should also be noted that, when expressing the opinion that decision-making capacity is absent, Dr. [J] did not exclude any decision from that view, be it under the heading of personal welfare or property and affairs decisions. S.8 6. I make this point in light of the “guiding principles” in s.8 of the 2015 Act and the concept of proportionality, in other words, that this Court should not make orders which are unnecessary or go further than is necessary. Service 7. In addition to Ms. Hull's grounding affidavit, she also swore a detailed affidavit of service, on 6 March. Given the facts averred to – i.e. facts sworn by Ms. Hull to be correct - I am satisfied that service was properly effected. Respondent’s views 8. It is clear from the affidavit that appropriate efforts were made to try and explain the nature of today's application and to try and ascertain Ms. [F]’s views. However, in the manner sworn to be correct, this was not possible. 9. Ms. Hull noted, however, how comfortable the respondent was and what a close relationship the respondent appears to have with the committee, in particular, with her cousin, Ms. [I]. Furthermore, the respondent gave no indication contrary to today's application. Suitability (s.38) 10. The joint committee members are all aware of the role and obligations of a decision-making representative (or “DMR”) and each has provided a declaration of suitability, signed in the context of s.38 of the 2015 Act, which deals with suitability. Assets 11. The application includes details of the respondent's assets, and a schedule is exhibited. These are significant and, in that context, I was very grateful to receive a detailed written proposal concerning the future management of the assets for the respondent’s benefit (complying with the President’s Practice Direction HC133) prepared by financial professionals. 3 12. This proposal was obtained by the committee with an obvious focus aimed at securing the capital (by means of low-risk returns and, where possible, State guarantees) and it is clear that the committee have, very appropriately, applied their minds to the important issue of the respondent’s assets being available for her benefit into the future. 13. I see that at paragraph 39 of Ms. Hall's grounding affidavit it is sworn to be the case that there is no Enduring Power of Attorney or Advance Healthcare Directive known to exist. Declaration 14. In light of the evidence before me, in particular, the uncontroverted medical evidence, I am making the following declaration today. 15. I am declaring pursuant to s.55 (1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act that Ms. [F] lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both her personal welfare and the property and affairs even if the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker were made available to her. Orders 16. What flows from the evidence is that it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to make the following orders (which reflect very closely the draft which Ms. Hull and Ms. Ralston BL have helpfully provided). To summarise those orders: 17. I am making an order under legislation called The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2008, and that will prohibit the publication or broadcast of any matter relating to these proceedings which would or which might identify the respondent, Ms. [F], as someone suffering from a medical condition. 18. Next, I am formally ordering that Ms. [F] is discharged from Wardship and remitted to the management of her affairs with the appointment of suitable persons as decision-making representatives, or “DMRs”. 19. On the evidence, there can be no persons more suitable than her first cousins and I am appointing Ms. [G], Mr. [H] and Ms. [I] as the respondent’s DMRs to act jointly and severally for the respondent in the areas of both personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making, subject to the obligations found in s.8 ss.(7) and (8) of the 2015 Act. 20. Recalling that Dr. [J] did not exclude any decision or decisions from the view that the respondent lacks capacity even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker, it is not necessary to set out the numerous decisions contained in the draft, all of which are included in the appointment of the DMRs. That is in circumstances where the appointment of the DMRs is ‘across the board’ with regard to all decisions falling under the heading of either “personal welfare” or “property and affairs”, given the medical evidence. 4 21. I will also order that Ms. [F] is entitled to receive the assets held on her behalf, in particular, by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice; the balance in the AIB account referred to in this application; and the balance, if any, in her Private Patient Account managed by [named residential care provider]. 22. The DMRs, on production of details of a suitable account in their names and in the respondent’s name, but with that account being under the custody, control and management of the DMRs, are authorised to receive any assets held on behalf of Ms. [F] by the Accountant of the Court of Justice or otherwise held on the respondent’s behalf. 23. The DMRs are to account to the Director of the Decision Support Service, and that reflects the obligations in s.46(6) of the 2015 Act. 24. I will order that the Accountant of the Courts of Justice carry out the directions in the payment schedule. 25. I will direct the DMRs to investigate further details of any other accounts which might be held with any financial institution in the respondent's name. 26. Given the permanent nature of Ms. [F]'s challenges, I will order that her capacity be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the making of these orders and I am directing that the Functional Capacity Assessment carried out by Dr. [J] be released to the Circuit Court in that regard. 27. The applicants are authorised to receive a copy of the court booklet. 28. Given that there is a legal aid certificate in place, I will make no order for costs. In conclusion 29. Finally, I want to thank Ms. [F] for her patience and to congratulate her on exiting Wardship. I also want to thank those who love her most, for attending court with her today. It is clear that Ms. [F] is receiving a very high standard of care so that she can enjoy as comfortable and happy a life as possible in an environment meeting her needs. I also want to pass my thanks on to the staff of [named residential care provider] in that regard. Finally, I want to renew my thanks to each of her cousins who have been such a support to Ms. [F] to date and, doubtless, will continue to be, going forward, in this new role as her DMRs.