In the Matter of A, A Ward of Court, and in the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an ex tempore ruling of Judge Heslin delivered 23 March 2026 in the High Court (Wards of Court) concerning the Respondent, a young man born in 2001 who has profound and complex needs and requires two carers at all times. The Respondent was admitted to wardship in 2020; his parents, Respondent's Mother and Respondent's Father, are his committee in wardship. Legal proceedings relating to the circumstances of his birth are ongoing and interim payments have been made with further payment anticipated. The application was grounded on an affidavit sworn by Attorney Dillon (31 July) and supported by medical evidence in a report dated 13 September 2025 from Doctor [Last Name]. The application seeks a declaration under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("2015 Act") and orders discharging the Respondent from wardship and appointing a decision-making representative (DMR).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under the 2015 Act, the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his personal welfare and his property and affairs, even with assistance of a co-decision-maker (invoking section 55(1)(b)(ii)).
2. Whether it is appropriate to discharge the Respondent from wardship and appoint a decision-making representative (DMR) to manage his personal welfare and property and affairs.
3. Whether the Respondent's attendance at the hearing may be dispensed with pursuant to section 139 of the 2015 Act given his inability to participate meaningfully.

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 followed the evidence and statutory framework set out in the 2015 Act. Key steps in the court's analysis were:

• The court noted the default position under section 139 that the Respondent should attend, but accepted Attorney Dillon's affidavit evidence and medical evidence that the Respondent could not participate meaningfully and that proceeding in his absence would not cause injustice.
• The court relied on the functional capacity assessment carried out by Doctor [Last Name] (consistent with section 3 and definitions in section 2 of the 2015 Act), which concluded that the Respondent lacks capacity in relation to both personal welfare and property and affairs, even with a co-decision-maker; there was no medical evidence to the contrary.
• The court addressed proportionality, noting the medical opinion did not rule out particular decisions in the future and that some decisions may still be required.
• The court accepted service as properly effected based on an affidavit of service and found appropriate steps had been taken to explain the application and ascertain the Respondent's views, which were not obtainable.
• Pursuant to the statutory obligation in section 54, the court made a declaration under section 55(1)(b)(ii) that the Respondent lacks capacity in the specified areas.
• The court considered the suitability of the proposed DMR: Respondent's Mother had provided a declaration under section 38 and was found, on the evidence, to be the most suitable person to act as DMR. The appointment is subject to the obligations in section 8(7) and (8).
• The court made ancillary orders to effect the discharge from wardship and transfer of assets: prohibition on identifying medical condition (under section 27 of the 2008 Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act), remittance of assets held by the Accountant of the Courts to an account with Company A, permission for the DMR to open and manage an account in the Respondent's name, and authorisations concerning debit card access and custody of existing accounts.
• The court authorised remuneration to the DMR for care at the rate fixed at discharge and noted the possibility of Circuit Court review of capacity in due course.
• Reporting and oversight measures were imposed: the DMR must account to the Decision Support Service director (section 46(6)), protect the Respondent's beneficial ownership of a motor vehicle, liaise with health professionals, and the functional capacity assessment by Doctor [Last Name] is to be released to the Circuit Court for a review no later than three years from the order.
• No order for costs was made given the existence of a legal aid certificate.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The court declared that the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his personal welfare and his property and affairs pursuant to section 55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act and ordered that the Respondent be discharged from wardship and remitted to management of his affairs with a decision-making representative.

Implications: The direct effects of the decision are (1) discharge from wardship; (2) appointment of Respondent's Mother as DMR for both personal welfare and property and affairs (subject to statutory obligations); (3) transfer of assets held by the Accountant of the Courts to an account with Company A and authorisation for the DMR to open and manage suitable banking arrangements; (4) DMR obligations to account to the Decision Support Service director, protect the Respondent's vehicle ownership, liaise with health professionals, and receive permitted remuneration; (5) anonymity protections under the 2008 Act; (6) Circuit Court review of capacity within three years and release of the functional capacity assessment to that court. The opinion does not purport to create new precedent and its consequences are limited to the parties and statutory oversight described above.