In the Matter of R, 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 211 [WOC 10902] IN THE MATTER OF R, 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. This is an application for the discharge from wardship of Ms. [R], whom I will refer to in this ruling as the “respondent”. As all present are aware, the Act we are concerned with is the 2015 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, which I will refer to as the “2015 Act”. Participation of respondent (s.139) 2. Although the ‘default’ position, under s.139 of the 2015 Act, is that the respondent would be present, I am satisfied that no injustice arises by proceeding in their absence. I take this view, given the evidence concerning her inability to participate in a meaningful way; and also her expressed wish not to. Certain facts 3. The respondent is a lady born in 1952. According to the evidence she suffers from dementia and psychosis as well as a number of other health issues. She was admitted to wardship, as Ms. Kelleher, solicitor, points out, in 2022. The ‘general solicitor’ is her committee in wardship. The respondent now lives in a residential care setting where she receives 24-hour support, in circumstances where she depends on others for activities of daily living. 2 Medical evidence 4. The application today is based or ‘grounded’ on a detailed statement verified on affidavit which was sworn by Ms. Ann-Marie Sheridan, solicitor, on 4 March. Of particular relevance is the medical evidence in the form of reporting from August of last year by Dr. [S], a consultant psychiatrist. Sections 2 and 3 5. Consistent with the provisions of s.3 of the 2015 Act, Dr. [S] carried out a functional assessment of the respondent's capacity to make decisions in relation to her “personal welfare” and her “property and affairs”, both of which terms are defined in s.2 of the 2015 Act. 6. Dr. [S] formed the view that the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both her personal welfare and the property and affairs, even if the assistance of a suitable person to act as co-decision-maker was made available to her. No issue has been taken with this medical evidence by or on behalf of Ms. [R]. Section 8 7. Having regard to the guiding principles in s.8 of the 2015 Act (in particular s.8(5) which provides that “There shall be no intervention…unless it is necessary…”) it should also be noted that Dr. [S]'s opinion regarding the respondent's lack of capacity did not exclude any decision which might fall under the heading of either personal welfare or property and affairs decision-making. Nor is it said that any decision or decisions will be unnecessary, going forward. Service 8. In addition to Ms. Sheriden's statement verified on affidavit, I also have the benefit of an affidavit of service which she swore on 4 March. 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 explain the nature of the application to the respondent; and to try and ascertain the respondent’s views. Expressed views 9. In the manner averred, the wishes expressed by the respondent were for Ms. Sheridan to leave and that the respondent did not want to address this Court. That reflects the reporting by independent social worker, Mr. [T], who met with the respondent in June of last year and found her to have very limited ability to engage meaningfully with him. He also noted that the respondent is receiving great care from staff who interact with her warmly and she also receives regular visits. Assets 10. I also note the position in relation to the respondent's assets, a schedule of which is exhibited and, in objective terms, these assets are straightforward. 3 DMR 11. In circumstances where there is no suitable person willing or able to carry out the role of decision-making representative (or “DMR”) the nomination of Mr. [U] from the panel maintained by the Decision Support Service has been approved by the President. Mr. [U] is an experienced social worker with a particular expertise in acting for vulnerable persons. Suitability (s.38) 12. Having regard to the provisions of s.38 of the 2015 Act, Mr. [U] has also provided a declaration of suitability. Declaration 13. In light of the evidence before me, in particular, the uncontroverted medical evidence, I am making the following declaration. 14. I am declaring, pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act, that the respondent, Ms. [R], lacks capacity to make decisions regarding 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. Orders 15. Having carefully considered the evidence in advance of sitting today, I am satisfied that it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to make orders reflecting the terms of the draft which Ms. Sheridan and Ms. Kelleher very helpfully provided. 16. To summarise those orders, the first is with regard to reporting and I am making an order under s.27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 prohibiting the publication or broadcast of any matter relating to these proceedings which would or which might identify the respondent, Ms. [R], as someone suffering from a medical condition. 17. I am formally ordering the discharge from wardship of Ms. [R] who is remitted to the management of her affairs with the appointment of a suitable person as her decision-making representative, or DMR. 18. I am ordering that Mr. [U] be appointed as the respondent's DMR for both personal welfare and property and affairs decisions, subject to the obligations found in s.8(7) and (8) of the 2015 Act (which, inter alia, require that, insofar as possible, the participation of the respondent in decision - making is facilitated and her will and preference is given effect to). 19. What flows from the foregoing is that the respondent is entitled to the return of the assets held on her behalf. 20. I will make an order that the DMR, on production of details of a suitable account with a financial institution in Mr. [U]'s name and in Ms. [R]'s, but with that account being under the custody 4 control and management of Mr. [U] as DMR, is authorised to receive the assets held on behalf of Ms. [R]. 21. The DMR is to account to the director of the Decision Support Service, reflecting the provisions of s.46(6). 22. The DMR is authorised to receive payment on behalf of Ms. [R] of any Department of Social Protection entitlements. 23. As Mr. [U] is a ‘panel’ DMR I will make orders under s.42(1) and (2) to the effect that the DMR is not entitled to be reimbursed from Ms. [R]'s assets in relation to expenses incurred, or to be paid remuneration from Ms. [R]'s assets in relation to the performance of his functions, as DMR, carried out in connection with his trade or profession. 24. Given the permanent nature of Ms. [R]'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 will direct that Dr. [S]'s functional capacity assessment be released to the Circuit Court. 25. The DMR is authorised to receive a copy of the court booklet. 26. In circumstances where I believe there is a legal aid certificate in being I will make no order for costs. In conclusion 27. I want to thank those providing such great day-to-day care and support to Ms. [R] which is enabling her to live as comfortable a life as possible in an environment meeting her needs. 28. I want to pass on my congratulations to Ms. [R] on leaving wardship, with the support of her DMR. 29. Finally, I want to wish her and Mr. [U] the very best in developing a new relationship, going forward.