S K v The Minister for Justice (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent was born in 1977 and has diagnoses including moderate intellectual disability and epilepsy. The Respondent was admitted to Wardship in 2019. The joint committee in Wardship comprised three of the Respondent's first cousins, who are proposed to act as decision-making representatives (DMRs). The Respondent has lived in a long-term residential care setting and receives substantial support from the joint committee.

An application was brought under s.55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") seeking the Respondent's discharge from Wardship and appointment of suitable decision-making representatives. The application was grounded on an affidavit sworn by Attorney Hull dated 6 March 2026 and on medical evidence in a report dated 9 December 2025 prepared by a medical expert who carried out a functional capacity assessment in accordance with s.3 of the 2015 Act. Service was attested as properly effected. A schedule of the Respondent's assets and a financial proposal prepared in compliance with the President's Practice Direction HC133 were filed. No Enduring Power of Attorney or Advance Healthcare Directive was identified.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act, the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions relating to personal welfare and property and affairs even with the assistance of a suitable co-decision-maker.
2. Whether it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to discharge the Respondent from Wardship and to appoint decision-making representatives to make decisions across the domains of personal welfare and property and affairs.
3. Whether ancillary orders should be made concerning confidentiality of proceedings, management and transfer of the Respondent's assets, accounting obligations, and review of capacity.

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 from the evidential record submitted in the grounding affidavit and the uncontroverted medical report. The medical expert conducted a functional assessment under s.3 of the 2015 Act and concluded that the Respondent lacks capacity in relation to both personal welfare and property and affairs, and that this lack of capacity would persist even if assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker. The court noted that the medical opinion did not exclude any particular decisions from that finding.

The court applied the guiding principles in s.8 of the 2015 Act and the concept of proportionality, stating that orders should not go further than necessary. The court accepted the affidavit of service and recorded that attempts to ascertain the Respondent's views were unsuccessful, though the Respondent showed comfort and positive relations with the joint committee. Declarations of suitability under s.38 had been provided by the committee members. The court considered the filed schedule of assets and a low‑risk, professionally prepared financial proposal for future asset management.

On that basis the court concluded that a declaration of incapacity under s.55(1)(b)(ii) was justified and that it was appropriate, necessary and proportionate to discharge the Respondent from Wardship and to appoint the proposed DMRs with comprehensive authority across personal welfare and property and affairs decisions. The court imposed conditions and ancillary directions consistent with statutory obligations (including accounting to the Director of the Decision Support Service under s.46(6)), directed steps for transfer and management of assets, and ordered a review of capacity by the Circuit Court within three years with disclosure of the functional assessment.

Holding and Implications

Declaration that the Respondent lacks capacity for decisions relating to personal welfare and property and affairs; Respondent discharged from Wardship and DMRs appointed.

Consequences and immediate effects:

• The court ordered publication suppression under the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 to prevent identification of the Respondent as someone with a medical condition.
• The Respondent was discharged from Wardship and three family members were appointed as decision-making representatives to act jointly and severally for all decisions within the personal welfare and property and affairs domains, subject to statutory obligations.
• The DMRs were authorised to receive assets held for the Respondent (subject to production of suitable joint accounts) and directed to account to the Director of the Decision Support Service; the Accountant was directed to implement the payment schedule and the DMRs to investigate other potential accounts.
• The Respondent's capacity is to be reviewed by the Circuit Court within three years, with the functional capacity assessment to be released to that court.
• No order for costs was made due to an existing legal aid certificate.

The opinion effects these specific orders for the parties and does not purport to establish new legal precedent.