T.S v B.S and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant sought orders under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, including an order for a detailed capacity assessment of the Applicant’s father, the Notice Party. The application arose from the Notice Party’s acute neurological and behavioural episode while abroad in December 2025, followed by alleged confusion, cognitive decline, functional loss, recurrent pneumonia, loss of driving independence, and the absence of a documented delirium screen or formal capacity assessment. [1][2][3][4][5]

The court directed that the Health Authority and the Notice Party be put on notice, and that two other family members be notified. The Notice Party’s solicitors obtained a short medical report stating that he had full decision-making capacity. The Health Authority also provided evidence of visits by public health, social work, and home-support personnel, none of whom identified safety, welfare, environmental, or safeguarding concerns. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the circumstances justified the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to the Notice Party. [14]
2. Whether the proceedings should be struck out where the available evidence did not establish a lack of decision-making capacity. [15][16][14][17]

Arguments of the Parties

Health Authority’s Arguments

• The application should be refused and the proceedings struck out because there was no evidence that the Notice Party lacked capacity; the available evidence instead indicated that he had decision-making capacity. [15]

Applicant’s Arguments

• The Applicant opposed striking out the proceedings.
• The Applicant argued that the medical report was not a full clinical assessment and did not satisfy the requirements of a report based on a functional capacity assessment under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. [16]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the medical report was brief, but noted that it expressly stated the medical practitioner’s opinion that the Notice Party had full decision-making capacity. [14]

The court also accepted evidence concerning the involvement of various Health Authority personnel, who identified no environmental, welfare, or safeguarding concerns relating to the Notice Party. [14]

The court held that a lack of capacity was an essential component for engagement of the inherent jurisdiction. Since the only medical report before the court confirmed full decision-making capacity, and the other evidence disclosed no relevant concerns, there was no basis for exercising that jurisdiction. [17]

Holding and Implications

The application was refused and the proceedings were struck out. [18]

The direct consequence was that no capacity assessment or other order was made under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in respect of the Notice Party. The opinion set no new precedent.