In the Matter of S, 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 246 [WOC 11135] IN THE MATTER OF S, 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. For the benefit of those joining ‘on-line’, I want to welcome Ms. [S] as well as her committee. This is my ruling in relation to an application for the discharge from Wardship of Ms. [S], whom I will call the “respondent”. We are dealing, today, with an Act called the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, and I will refer to that as the “2015 Act”. Certain facts 2. As to certain basic facts, the respondent, Ms. [S], is a lady born in [the 1940s] and, as Ms. Ralston BL touched on, the evidence demonstrates that she has a long-standing history of mental health issues including a diagnosis of schizophrenia, including delusional beliefs, and very sadly she is now suffering from dementia. She was admitted to Wardship in 2022 and her niece, Ms. [T], and sister, Ms. [U], are her joint committee. Since 2022, the respondent has lived in a residential care setting and it is clear from the evidence that she receives necessary support and assistance there in circumstances where she depends on others. 3. The application is based, or ‘grounded’, on an affidavit sworn by Ms. Bernadette McGonigle, solicitor, on 5 March. In particular, it refers to medical evidence in the form of reporting dated 30 August of last year by Dr. [V], a consultant psychiatrist. 2 Functional assessment 4. Consistent with the provisions of s.3 of the 2015 Act, Dr. [V] 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. Capacity 5. Dr. [V] formed 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 to act as co-decision-maker is made available to her. No issue has been taken with this medical evidence by, or on behalf of, the respondent. Proportionality (s.8 guiding principles) 6. It should also be noted that Dr. [V]'s opinion that the respondent lacks capacity does not exclude any decision which might come under the heading of either personal welfare or property and affairs decision-making. Nor is it said that it will be unnecessary for any particular decision to be made in the future. I make these points in light of the principle of proportionality and the “guiding principles” found in s.8 of the Act. 7. In addition to her ‘grounding’ affidavit, Ms. McGonigle, solicitor, also swore an affidavit of service on 5 March 2026. Given the facts averred to (i.e. facts sworn to be correct) I am satisfied that service was properly effected on the respondent, that appropriate efforts were made to try and explain the nature of this application to her, and that appropriate efforts were also made to try and ascertain her views. Views 8. In the manner averred, the respondent expressed beliefs which are not based in reality, and it was not possible to obtain her will and preference regarding discharge from Wardship, not least because the respondent does not believe she is a Ward of Court. 9. However, the joint committee members are both aware of the role and obligations of a decision-making representative (“a DMR”), and each has provided a declaration of suitability, signed in the context of s.38 of the 2015 Act. Assets 10. I note the position in relation to the respondent's assets. In objective terms they are relatively straightforward, and a schedule of assets is exhibited. 11. I see that, at para. 19 of the grounding affidavit, it is averred that there is no Enduring Power of Attorney or Advance Healthcare Directive known to exist. 12. In light of the evidence, in particular, uncontroverted medical evidence, I am now making the following declaration in relation to the respondent. 3 Declaration 13. I am declaring pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act that the respondent, Ms. [S], 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 14. Having carefully considered the evidence, I am satisfied it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to make orders reflecting the draft which Ms. McGonigle, solicitor, and Ms. Ralston BL have very helpfully provided. 15. To summarise those orders, first, I am making an order under s.27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, which will prohibit the publication or broadcast of any matter relating to these proceedings which would or might identify Ms. [S] as someone suffering from a medical condition. 16. I am ordering the formal discharge from Wardship of Ms. [S]. She is remitted to the management of her affairs with the appointment of suitable persons as her decision-making representatives, or “DMRs”. 17. On the evidence, her current committee members are entirely suitable and I am appointing Ms. [T] and Ms. [U] as decision-making representatives for Ms. [S] to act jointly and severally 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. 18. Given that Dr. [V] did not exclude any decision from his opinion that the respondent lacked capacity, even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker, today’s appointment of the DMRs is not limited to the specific decisions included in the draft. I am happy to include those particular decisions, but I do not think it is necessary to set out each in this ruling, because, having regard to the medical evidence, all decisions under the heading of personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making are included in the appointment. 19. I will order that Ms. [S] is entitled to receive the assets held on her behalf by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice in the committee account. 20. In practical terms, I will make an order that the DMRs, on production of details of a suitable account, in their name and in Ms. [S]’s name, but with that account being under the custody, control and management of the DMRs, are authorised to receive the assets held on behalf of the respondent by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice and in the committee account. 21. I will order that the DMRs be authorised to receive payment of the Civil Service occupational pension on behalf of Ms. [S]. 4 22. I will direct the DMRs to investigate further details of any account held with any financial institution in the name of Ms. [S]. 23. The DMRs are authorised to take all necessary steps to protect Ms. [S]’s interest in the property in [location] referred to in the application. 24. As with any dealings in Ms. [S]’s property and affairs, the DMRs are to account to the director of the Decision Support Service, reflecting the provisions in s.46(6) of the 2015 Act. 25. The Accountant of the Courts of Justice is to carry out the directions contained in the payment schedule. 26. Given the permanent nature of the respondent’s conditions, 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. [V]’s functional capacity assessment be released to the Circuit Court in that regard. 27. The applicant is authorised to provide the DMRs with a copy of the court booklet. 28. In circumstances where there is a Legal Aid Certificate in place, I will make no order for costs. In conclusion 29. Finally, as well as congratulating Ms. [S] on leaving Wardship, I want to thank those providing great day-to-day care to her. I also want to wish Ms. [T] and Ms. [U] the very best in supporting Ms. [S] in the new role as her decision-making representatives, acting jointly and severally. Thank you.