In the Matter of SA [A Ward of Court] (Approved)

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 discharge of the Respondent, a lady in her 70s diagnosed with severe dementia, from wardship. The Respondent was admitted to wardship in 2017, with the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court acting as her committee in respect of her person and estate. She currently resides in a nursing home, where she has lived since 2015. The application was brought by the committee via a motion issued on 26 May 2023, supported by an affidavit from an official of the General Solicitor's Office outlining the Respondent’s diagnosis, living situation, and needs. Correspondence including a reader-friendly leaflet about leaving wardship was sent to the Respondent and the director of nursing at her residence. Medical evidence was provided by a consultant psychiatrist who assessed the Respondent’s capacity, and an independent social worker also reported on her condition and care. The court considered nominations for a decision-making representative (DMR) due to the absence of suitable family or other persons to act in that role.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding her health, personal welfare, and property and financial affairs under the 2015 Act.
2. If the Respondent lacks capacity, whether this incapacity persists even with the assistance of a suitable co-decision-maker.
3. Whether it is appropriate to appoint a decision-making representative to manage the Respondent’s affairs and to discharge her from wardship accordingly.

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’s analysis focused on the evidence before it, primarily the uncontroverted medical and social reports. The consultant psychiatrist’s report diagnosed the Respondent with severe, permanent, and progressive mixed dementia, concluding she lacks insight into her cognitive and physical dependencies. Functional capacity assessments demonstrated that the Respondent is unable to understand, retain, use, or weigh information necessary to make decisions concerning her health, welfare, and financial affairs, even with assistance. The independent social worker’s report corroborated the Respondent’s deteriorating mental state and need for a court-appointed representative. The court noted the absence of family involvement or any suitable person willing or able to act as DMR. Given these facts, the court found it appropriate to declare that the Respondent lacks capacity under s. 55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act and to appoint a qualified solicitor as DMR. The court also considered statutory obligations for the DMR to facilitate the Respondent’s input as far as possible and to consider the views of those with a bona fide interest in her welfare.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is as follows:

• The Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding her health, personal welfare, property, and financial affairs, even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker.
• The Respondent is discharged from wardship pursuant to section 55(5)(b) of the 2015 Act and her affairs are to be managed by the appointed DMR subject to statutory obligations.
• Mr. O'C, a qualified solicitor with expertise in vulnerable clients, is appointed as the Respondent’s DMR in all relevant areas under the 2015 Act.
• Protective orders were made to prohibit publication likely to identify the Respondent and to regulate the management and receipt of her assets and pensions.
• The DMR, being a professional, is not entitled to remuneration or reimbursement from the Respondent’s assets.
• The Respondent’s capacity is to be reviewed no later than three years from the date of the ruling.

The direct effect of this decision is the formal discharge of the Respondent from wardship with the appointment of a DMR to manage her affairs. No new legal precedent was established.