In the Matter of P, a Ward of Court, and in the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act and in the Matter of the Ward's Committee Seeking to be his Co-Decision-Makers (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge Heslin on 23 February 2026, concerns an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015 in respect of a person who is a ward of court ("Relevant Person"). A court medical visitor (Medical Visitor [D]) carried out a functional assessment of the Relevant Person's capacity for personal welfare and for property and affairs on 22 July 2025 and reported on 24 July 2025 that the Relevant Person "currently demonstrates capacity for decisions related to personal welfare and property and affairs". The joint committee (comprising two siblings) provided a draft order indicating disagreement with the medical opinion and applied for a declaration under section 55(1)(b)(ii) that they be appointed as co-decision-makers, particularly in relation to property and affairs. The Court noted the lack of medical evidence opposing the medical visitor's report and identified a dispute about whether the Relevant Person "may benefit from" support versus "requires" support.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in light of the medical visitor's finding that the Relevant Person currently demonstrates capacity in personal welfare and property and affairs, a declaration under section 55(1)(a) (discharge from wardship without support) is appropriate.
2. Whether the committee's concern that the Relevant Person "may benefit from" a co-decision-maker amounts to a necessary intervention under the 2015 Act such that a declaration under section 55(1)(b)(ii) and appointment of co-decision-makers is justified.
3. Whether further independent inquiry is necessary to ascertain the Relevant Person's views and preferences before deciding on appointment of co-decision-makers.

Arguments of the Parties

Committee's Arguments

• The committee seeks a declaration under section 55(1)(b)(ii) and appointment as co-decision-makers, particularly for property and affairs, motivated by concern for the Relevant Person's best interests and a desire to protect him from potentially unwise decisions.
• The committee relies on the medical visitor's observation that, given the Relevant Person's relative lack of experience in independent decision-making and financial management, he "may benefit from the support of a co-decision-maker."

Medical Visitor's Position

• Medical Visitor [D] reported that the Relevant Person "currently demonstrates capacity for decisions related to personal welfare and property and affairs".
• The medical visitor additionally stated the Relevant Person "may benefit from the support of a co-decision-maker" with regard to property and affairs but did not opine that the Relevant Person required such support or lacked capacity without it.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by reference to the functional medical assessment and the text and guiding principles of the 2015 Act. Key elements of the reasoning were:

• The sole medical evidence (Medical Visitor [D]'s report) supports a finding that the Relevant Person currently has capacity in both personal welfare and property and affairs, which aligns with the criteria for a discharge under section 55(1)(a).
• The committee are not medical professionals and offered no medical evidence to contradict the medical visitor's conclusion; their stated disagreement does not itself displace the medical assessment.
• The distinction between "may benefit from" support and "requires" support is critical: the medical visitor's wording indicates potential benefit rather than necessity, and he did not state that capacity depended on co-decision-maker support.
• The 2015 Act prioritises maximising autonomy; section 8(4) forbids treating a person as unable to make a decision solely because they may make an unwise decision, and section 8(5) provides that there shall be no intervention unless necessary in the individual's circumstances. Thus, preventing unwise decisions is not, by itself, a basis for intervention where capacity exists.
• Given the factual dispute about the Relevant Person's views and the practical difference between accepting advice and regarding co-decision-making as necessary, the Court found further independent inquiry warranted to ensure the Relevant Person's voice and preferences are fully ascertained.
• Accordingly, the Court determined it was inappropriate to finally dispose of the application on the day and that appointing an independent Guardian ad Litem would assist by exhaustively interrogating and ascertaining the Relevant Person's views.

Holding and Implications

The Court adjourned the application and appointed a Guardian ad Litem.

Implications: The direct effect is that the application for appointment of co-decision-makers will not be determined until the Guardian ad Litem has investigated and reported on the Relevant Person's understanding and preferences. The Court emphasised that this ruling follows the 2015 Act's focus on autonomy and the requirement that interventions be necessary; no novel legal precedent was established beyond the application of those statutory principles to the facts before the Court.