Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") regarding the capacity of the Respondent, who is a ward of court. The Respondent is a widowed woman born in 1928, diagnosed with Alzheimer's Dementia in 2017, and admitted to wardship in November 2019. The General Solicitor acts as her Committee. She lives alone in her family home and receives care and support from her granddaughter. The Committee brought the application by way of motion issued on 18 October 2023, supported by a sworn affidavit detailing the Respondent’s diagnosis, living circumstances, and financial situation. The court must decide whether the Respondent lacks capacity in certain areas of decision-making and if a co-decisionmaker or decision-making representative should be appointed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Respondent lacks capacity in relation to health, personal welfare, and property and affairs.
- If the Respondent lacks capacity, whether this incapacity can be remedied or supported by the appointment of a co-decisionmaker.
- Whether the Respondent should be discharged from wardship subject to the registration of a co-decision-making agreement.
- Whether the Respondent’s assets should be returned upon registration of a co-decision-making agreement.
- Whether the Respondent’s capacity should be reviewed periodically following this decision.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the medical evidence, particularly a report from a Consultant Psychiatrist who assessed the Respondent and confirmed a diagnosis of dementia. The psychiatrist concluded that while the Respondent lacks capacity for complex decisions related to welfare, healthcare, treatment, and finances due to deficits in weighing and balancing information, she retains some ability for less complex decision-making when supported.
The court also considered the Respondent's expressed wishes and the family dynamics. The Respondent consistently expressed a desire for her granddaughter to act as her co-decisionmaker, a preference supported by affidavits and the absence of any competing medical opinion. The court noted the complex relationships among the Respondent’s children but declined to prefer any child over another, instead respecting the Respondent’s clear will.
Given the evidence of the Respondent’s condition, her ongoing independence, and the support network, the court concluded that a co-decision-maker would appropriately assist her in managing complex decisions. The court also considered procedural and statutory requirements, including the prohibition on identifying the Respondent and the necessity of registering the co-decision-making agreement with the Decision Support Service.
Holding and Implications
The court declared that the Respondent lacks capacity in the areas of health, personal welfare, and property and affairs unless assisted by a suitable co-decisionmaker.
The court ordered the appointment of the Respondent’s granddaughter as co-decisionmaker, consistent with the Respondent’s expressed wishes and suitability. The Respondent was discharged from wardship subject to the registration of the co-decision-making agreement within three months. Upon registration, the Respondent’s assets are to be returned, and the Accountant of the Court of Justice is to implement the directions in the payment schedule.
Additionally, the court ordered a review of the Respondent’s capacity no later than two years from the date of the order. No costs were awarded in relation to the application. The decision directly affects the parties by enabling the Respondent’s discharge from wardship and appointment of a co-decisionmaker, without creating new legal precedent.