In the Matter of N, 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 delivered by Judge Heslin on 23 March 2026 concerning an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision‑Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("2015 Act") for the discharge from wardship of the person referred to below as the Respondent. The Respondent was born in 1956, has a lifelong learning disability, communicates verbally only to a very limited extent, was admitted to wardship in 1985, and has lived for many years in residential care. The joint committee in wardship comprises the Respondent's sister and brother‑in‑law (referred to below as Committee Member 1 and Committee Member 2), who attended the hearing.

The application was grounded on an affidavit sworn by Committee Member 1 and relied on medical evidence in a report dated 25 November 2025 and a 9 December 2025 addendum by a treating doctor ("the Doctor"). The Doctor carried out a functional assessment (pursuant to s.3 of the 2015 Act) and concluded that the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both personal welfare and property and affairs, even with the assistance of a co‑decision‑maker. An affidavit of service sworn by Attorney Craven on 10 March 2026 averred proper service and efforts to explain the application and ascertain the Respondent's views. The Judge proceeded in the Respondent's absence under s.139, having concluded that no injustice would result.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, on the evidence (including the Doctor's functional assessment), the Respondent should be declared to lack capacity in respect of personal welfare and property and affairs pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act.
2. Whether it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to discharge the Respondent from wardship and to appoint decision‑making representatives (DMRs) under the 2015 Act.
3. Whether the Court should make ancillary orders including a prohibition on publication identifying the Respondent's medical condition (pursuant to s.27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008), directions as to management and return of assets, authorisation for social welfare payments to be paid directly, and directions for accounting and review of capacity.
4. Whether the Court could properly proceed in the Respondent's absence under s.139 of the 2015 Act, given the attempts to ascertain his views and his inability to participate meaningfully.
5. Application of the principle of necessity and proportionality and the guiding principles in s.8 of the 2015 Act when framing orders.

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 proceeded as follows:

• The Judge determined that proceeding in the Respondent's absence was permissible under s.139 because proper service had been effected (per Attorney Craven's affidavit), reasonable efforts were made to explain the application and to elicit the Respondent's views, and the Respondent could not participate meaningfully.
• The uncontroverted medical evidence (the Doctor's functional assessment and addendum) established lack of capacity in both defined areas—personal welfare and property and affairs—even with assistance. No party disputed that evidence.
• Applying the guiding principles and the proportionality requirement in s.8 of the 2015 Act, the Court noted that orders should not go further than necessary; the Doctor's evidence, however, indicated there were no individual decisions for which the Respondent retained capacity even with assistance, justifying comprehensive measures.
• The joint committee members had provided signed declarations of suitability under s.38 of the 2015 Act; the assets of the Respondent were relatively straightforward as shown in an exhibited schedule; these factual findings supported the proposed orders.
• On that basis the Court was satisfied that it was appropriate, necessary and proportionate to make the draft orders provided, including a publication prohibition, discharge from wardship, appointment of the committee members as DMRs acting jointly and severally across both personal welfare and property and affairs, and ancillary financial and supervisory directions (custody of accounts, authority to open accounts, direct receipt of Department of Social Protection entitlements with a twelve‑month review, accounting to the Director of the Decision Support Service under s.46(6), and a Circuit Court review of capacity within three years with release of the Doctor's assessment to that court).
• The Court also ordered that both DMRs be provided with a copy of the court booklet and made no order as to costs in light of the existence of a legal aid certificate.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court declared that the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both personal welfare and property and affairs even with the assistance of a co‑decision‑maker (pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act) and ordered that the Respondent be discharged from wardship and remitted to the management of his affairs with Committee Member 1 and Committee Member 2 appointed as decision‑making representatives (DMRs) acting jointly and severally for both personal welfare and property and affairs.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the DMRs are authorised to manage the Respondent's property and affairs (including custody and management of accounts, opening accounts as necessary, making healthcare and other listed decisions, and receiving the Respondent's Department of Social Protection entitlements subject to a twelve‑month review). The DMRs must account to the Director of the Decision Support Service for dealings with property and affairs, and the Respondent's capacity must be reviewed by the Circuit Court within three years (with the Doctor's assessment to be provided). The Court also made a publication prohibition under s.27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. No broader precedent was established by the ruling; the decision governs the parties' rights and obligations as set out above.