In the Matter of H, [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 from wardship. The Respondent, a man in his sixties with a diagnosis of mild intellectual disability, was admitted to wardship in April 2001 following compensation for personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident in 1997. The Respondent currently resides in supported accommodation under the care of a service provider. The committee in wardship, represented by a solicitor, brought the application to the High Court to determine the Respondent’s capacity to make decisions in specified areas and to consider his discharge from wardship with the appointment of a decision-making representative ("DMR").

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions in the areas of Personal Welfare and Property and Affairs, and if so, whether this lack of capacity can be remedied by the assistance of a suitable co-decision maker.
2. Whether the Respondent should be discharged from wardship pursuant to section 55 of the 2015 Act, given the absence of a suitable co-decision maker willing and available to act.
3. The appropriate appointment and role of a decision-making representative in managing the Respondent’s affairs post-discharge from wardship.

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 statutory framework established by the 2015 Act, particularly section 55, which provides for declarations regarding capacity and the discharge of wardship with the appointment of a DMR where no suitable co-decision maker is available. The medical evidence, provided by a consultant psychiatrist, established that the Respondent has capacity limitations in managing complex health, welfare, and financial matters but retains capacity for simpler decisions with assistance. Given that the Respondent does not have a suitable person to act as co-decision maker and accepts assistance, the court found it appropriate to discharge him from wardship and appoint a DMR to act jointly with the Respondent in decision-making. The court also considered the Respondent’s assets, the absence of any enduring power of attorney or advanced healthcare directive, and the necessity of protecting the Respondent’s interests through proper management and oversight by the DMR, including accounting obligations to the Director of the Decision Support Service.

Holding and Implications

The court declared that the Respondent lacks capacity in the areas of Personal Welfare and Property and Affairs decisions unless assisted by a suitable co-decision maker, and, as no such person is available, formally discharged him from wardship with the appointment of a decision-making representative.

The court appointed a qualified solicitor as the Respondent’s DMR, who will act jointly with the Respondent in decision-making, manage his assets, and report to the relevant authorities. The Respondent will continue to receive certain social protection payments directly, subject to review. The court also imposed restrictions on reporting to protect the Respondent’s identity and ordered a review of capacity within three years. No costs were awarded. This decision allows the Respondent greater autonomy while ensuring appropriate safeguards remain in place. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of the statutory provisions to the facts of this case.