THE HIGH COURT WARDS OF COURT [2026] IEHC 294 [WOC 10332] IN THE MATTER OF C, A WARD OF COURT, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 55 OF THE ASSISTED DECISION-MAKING (CAPACITY) ACT RESPONDENT Ex Tempore Ruling of Mr. Justice Mark Heslin delivered on the 23rd day of March 2026 Introduction
- I want to acknowledge the presence ‘on-line’ of Mr. [C], whom I understand is known as [named]. Today is about Mr. [C] leaving Wardship and in this short ruling I will refer to him as the “respondent”. The Act we are concerned with is the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which I will call the “2015 Act”. Certain facts
- I can see from the evidence that the respondent is a gentleman born in [the 1930’s] and he has complex needs arising from diagnoses which include moderate to severe intellectual disability as well as a number of other medical conditions. He was admitted to Wardship in 2020 and, as Ms. Ralston BL points out, his brother, Mr. [D] is his committee in Wardship.
- I note that since childhood the respondent has lived in a residential-care setting and, according to the evidence, he continues to receive necessary support and assistance in circumstances where he depends on others for activities of daily living. Functional assessment
- I have had regard to the averments - the statements sworn by Ms. Geraldine Carey, solicitor, to be correct - in her 03 March affidavit. In particular, I have considered the medical evidence in the form of reporting, dated 11 October last, by Dr. [E], a consultant psychiatrist. 2 S.2 and 3
- Consistent with s.3 of the 2015 Act, Dr. [E] carried out a functional assessment of the respondent's capacity to make decisions in relation to his “personal welfare” and his “property and affairs”, both of which terms are defined in s.2 of the 2015 Act. Capacity
- Dr. [E] formed the view that the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding both his personal welfare and his property and affairs even if the assistance of a suitable person to act as co-decision-maker is made available to him. No issue has been taken with this medical evidence by, or on behalf of, the respondent, Mr. [C]. Proportionality (s.8)
- It should also be noted - because it is relevant to the principle of proportionality - that Dr. [E]’s view regarding the respondent’s lack of capacity, even with the assistance of a co-decision maker, does not exclude any decision which might come under the heading of either personal welfare or property and affairs. Nor is it said that it will be unnecessary for any particular decision to be made in the future. Service
- In addition to Ms. Carey’s grounding affidavit, I also have the benefit of an affidavit of service which she swore, on 03 March
- Given the facts averred to (facts sworn by Ms. Carey to be correct) I am satisfied that service was properly effected and that appropriate efforts were made to try and explain the nature of this application to the respondent. Views
- However, in the manner averred, this was not possible as the respondent did not appear to understand what had been explained and was unable to communicate by any means. S.38
- The respondent’s niece, Ms. [F], a daughter of the respondent’s brother and committee, is aware of the role and obligations of a decision-making representative (or “DMR”) and has provided a declaration of suitability, signed by her in the context of s.38 of the 2015 Act. Assets
- The application includes details of the respondent's assets, and a schedule is exhibited. In objective terms these are relatively straightforward. EPA and AHD
- I also note that, at para. 17 of Ms. Carey’s grounding affidavit, it is averred that there is no Enduring Power of Attorney or Advance Healthcare Directive known to exist. 3 Declaration
- In light of the evidence all of which I carefully considered in advance of sitting today, in particular, the uncontroverted medical evidence, I am making the following declaration.
- I am declaring pursuant to s.55
(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act that Mr. [C] lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his personal welfare and his property and affairs even if the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker were made available to him. Orders
- Given the evidence before me, I am satisfied that it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to make orders in terms of the draft which was Ms. Carey and Ms. Ralston BL have helpfully provided in advance. To summarise those:
- I am first making an order under s.27 of an Act called the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2008 and the effect of that order is to prohibit the publication or broadcast of any matter relating to these proceedings which would which or which might identify Mr. [C] as someone suffering from a medical condition.
- Next, I am ordering that Mr. [C] be discharged from Wardship and remitted to the management of his affairs with the appointment of a suitable person as decision-making representative.
- On the evidence, Ms. [F] is entirely suitable, and I am appointing the respondent’s niece, Ms. [F], as DMR in the areas of both personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making, subject to the obligations found in s.8, ss.
(7)and
(8)of the 2015 Act.
- Recalling that Dr. [E] did not exclude any decision from her view that the respondent lacks capacity (even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker), I want to make clear that today’s appointment of Ms. [F] as DMR is not limited to the list of decisions which are included in the draft. I am very happy for them to be included but, given what I have just stated, I do not think it is necessary for me to go through them in ‘granular’ terms.
- The respondent is entitled to the return of all assets held on his behalf. In practical terms, I will make an order that Ms. [F], the DMR, on production of details of a suitable account with a financial institution in her name, and in Mr. [C]'s name, but with that account being under her custody, control and management as DMR, is authorised to receive the assets held on behalf of Mr. [C], in particular, to receive the balance in the HSE private patient account.
- The DMR is authorised to receive payment, on behalf of Mr. [C], of all the Department of Social Protection entitlements, in particular, the old-age pension. 4
- The DMR is also to investigate further details of any accounts which might be held with any financial institution in the name of Mr. [C].
- As with any dealings with the property and affairs of Mr. [C], I will order that the DMR account to the Director of Decision Support Service, and that reflects the provisions of s.46
(6)of the 2015 Act.
- Given the permanent nature of Mr. [C]’s challenges, I will order this capacity be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the date of these orders and I will direct that the functional capacity assessment carried out by Dr. [E] be released to the Circuit Court in that regard.
- The applicant is entitled to provide the DMR, Ms. [F], with a copy of the court booklet and in circumstances where I understand there is a legal aid certificate in being I will make no order for costs. In conclusion
- Finally, it is clear from the evidence that Mr. [C] is receiving great care, so that he can be enabled to live as comfortable a life as possible in an environment which meets his needs.
- I see from the papers that Mr. [C] particularly enjoys attending church, enjoys lighting candles, enjoys sitting in a quiet coffee shop, and enjoys listening to soft music.
- I want to assure Mr. [C] that nothing is going to change day-to-day as a result of today's decision.
- It simply means that he has now left Wardship, with appropriate support from his niece, to whom I want to wish the very best in performing the role of Mr. [C]’s DMR, going forward.