Summary of Opinion — Wards of Court [2026] IEHC 356

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent, born in the 1990s, has diagnoses of cerebral palsy and a mild learning disability and was involved in a childhood road-traffic accident. The Respondent was admitted to Wardship in an earlier year. The Respondent's mother and sister serve as the committee of the person; the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court was appointed committee of the Respondent's estate. An application under s.55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 was brought seeking discharge from Wardship and for a member of the committee of the person to be appointed as co-decision-maker for property and affairs. The court received affidavits, medical reports from a consultant psychiatrist, a financial and investment plan, and affidavits from the General Solicitor raising concerns about the Respondent's financial affairs. The Director of the Decision Support Service was directed to be asked to nominate a decision-making representative (DMR) for property and affairs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make personal welfare decisions (s.55(1)(a) of the 2015 Act).
2. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make one or more decisions in relation to property and affairs unless assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker (s.55(1)(b)(i) of the 2015 Act).
3. Whether a family member who is on the committee of the person can be appointed as co-decision-maker for property and affairs given concerns raised by the committee of the estate.
4. Whether, in the absence of a suitable family co-decision-maker, the Director of the Decision Support Service should be requested to nominate a DMR for property and affairs (s.38(7)(a) of the 2015 Act).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant (committee of the person) — summary of arguments

• Relied on medical evidence (consultant psychiatrist report and addendum) assessing functional capacity for personal welfare and property/affairs decisions.
• Submitted that the Respondent expresses a clear and consistent wish for mother and sister to assist with managing money.
• Presented a financial and investment plan prepared by financial professionals.

General Solicitor (committee of the estate) — summary of arguments

• Raised concerns about payments said to have been made directly to the committee of the person without approval of the Wards of Court Office.
• Raised long-standing concerns regarding vouching of expenditure.
• Identified difficulty in establishing who has been residing in properties owned by the Respondent and concerns about works carried out without court consent and potential unauthorised attempts to rent property.
• Pointed to an apparent conflict arising from family occupation of property causing loss of income to the Respondent.
• Expressed reservations about proposed post-discharge levels of expenditure in the financial plan.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court assessed the evidence on a functional-capacity basis as required by the 2015 Act. It gave weight to the consultant psychiatrist's report and addendum, which found that the Respondent has functional capacity for personal welfare decisions (able to understand care needs, retain, weigh up information and communicate with assistance) but has limited ability regarding larger financial matters and lacks capacity for some property and affairs decisions unless assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker.

The court reviewed procedural matters of service and noted the Respondent's clearly and consistently expressed wish that her mother and sister assist with financial decisions. It also considered the scope and complexity of the Respondent's assets and the financial plan presented by the committee of the person.

The General Solicitor's affidavits raised multiple concerns relating solely to property and affairs (unauthorised payments, vouching issues, uncertainty about occupancy, unauthorised works and potential loss of rental income, and reservations about proposed expenditure). The court expressly acknowledged the family’s love and the Respondent's trust in them but found that, viewed objectively, the nature and number of the estate committee's concerns give rise to a conflict or potential conflict that presently prevents family members from performing the functions of a co-decision-maker for property and affairs.

The court concluded there is no suitable family member available at present to act as co-decision-maker and that the situation contemplated by s.38 of the 2015 Act therefore arises. Consequently the court directed that the Director of the Decision Support Service be asked to nominate a DMR for property and affairs only. The court emphasised that appointment of a DMR under the Act will not diminish the Respondent's autonomy because s.41 requires the DMR, so far as practicable, to make decisions jointly with the relevant person.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

• Declared pursuant to s.55(1)(a) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the Respondent does not lack capacity to make personal welfare decisions.
• Declared pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(i) that the Respondent lacks capacity to make one or more decisions in relation to property and affairs unless assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker.
• The court directed that the Director of the Decision Support Service be requested to nominate a decision-making representative (DMR) for property and affairs (pursuant to s.38(7)(a)).

Implications:

• The Respondent will not be discharged from Wardship immediately; the court declined to make a formal discharge order at this hearing.
• Family members who are committee of the person are, for now, precluded from serving as co-decision-makers for property and affairs because of an objective conflict or potential conflict arising from issues identified by the committee of the estate.
• The Director of the Decision Support Service is to nominate a DMR for property and affairs; any DMR must, under s.41, seek to ensure joint decision-making with the Respondent so far as practicable, preserving the Respondent's autonomy.
• No new legal precedent was established by this ruling; the decision applies statutory provisions of the 2015 Act to the facts before the court.

Prepared from the ex tempore ruling delivered by Judge Heslin on 10 March 2026. This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion.