Court declares ward lacks capacity for personal welfare with co-decision-maker and for property without one.

THE HIGH COURT

WARDS OF COURT

[2026] IEHC 233

[WOC 7105]

IN THE MATTER OF L, 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

1. Having had the benefit of considering the papers in advance and grateful to counsel for their helpful submission, I will now give a ruling in this application for the discharge from Wardship of Mr. [L] (whom I will refer to as the “respondent”) as required by the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, 2015 (which I will call the “2015 Act”).

Facts

2. I can see from the evidence that the respondent is a gentleman born in 1969 who, very sadly, sustained serious head trauma in a fall in 2011 and was admitted to Wardship in 2012, his brother being his ‘committee’. I see that he resides in his own home, with support, and is enabled to live as independent a life as possible.

Respondent’s capacity (s.2 and 3)

3. I have had regard to the averments (i.e. the statements sworn to be correct) by the respondent’s brother, Mr. [M], in his affidavit of 9 March. Of particular relevance is the medical evidence in the form of reporting, dated 20 August last, by Dr. [N].

4. Consistent with s.3 of the 2015 Act, Dr. [N] 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. Dr. [N]'s evidence is to the effect that the respondent (i) lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to his personal welfare unless the assistance of a suitable person to act as co-decision-maker is made available to him; and (ii) that, in relation to property and affairs decisions, he lacks capacity even with the assistance of a co-

decision-maker, and requires a decision-making representative. No issue has been taken with this medical evidence by, or on behalf of, Mr. [L].

Service

5. I also have the benefit of an affidavit of service sworn by Mr. Michael McCarthy, solicitor, on

9 March of this year and, given the facts averred to, I am satisfied that service was properly effected on the respondent, and that appropriate efforts were made to explain the nature of the application to him, and to ascertain his views.

Respondent’s views

6. In the manner averred, Mr. [L] said he would like his brother, Mr. [M], to help him make decisions. Mr. [M] is aware of the roles of ‘co-decision-maker’ and ‘decision-making representative’, respectively.

Suitability (s.38)

7. A declaration of suitability has also been signed by the respondent’s brother, in the context of s.38 of the 2015 Act.

Family’s views

8. I also see from the correspondence handed in today, that the respondent's parents and sisters are agreeable to this proposal, but seek that this Court would direct that his siblings are kept informed (with which no issue is taken).

Assets

9. I note the position in relation to Mr. [L]’s assets, a schedule of which is exhibited. In objective terms, they are relatively straightforward and, at para. 4 of the grounding affidavit sworn by Mr. [M], averments are made in relation to the future management of those assets for the benefit of Mr. [L].

Declaration

10. In light of the evidence, in particular, the uncontroverted medical evidence, I am going to make the following declarations.

11. First, to declare, pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(i) of the 2015 Act, that the respondent, Mr. [L], lacks capacity, unless the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker is made available to him, to make one or more decisions regarding his personal welfare.

12. I will also make the following declaration, that is to declare, pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act, that Mr. [L] lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his property and affairs, even if the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker were made available to him.

Adjourn balance

13. Having made the declarations consistent with the obligation on this Court imposed by the 2015 Act, and taking into account s.55(3), and in addition to making an order pursuant to s.27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2008, prohibiting the publication of any matter relating to these proceedings which would or might identify the respondent as someone suffering from a medical condition, it is appropriate to adjourn the balance of today's application to enable the registration of the co-decision-making agreement between Mr. [L] and Mr. [M].

14. Counsel helpfully points out that this has not yet been drafted and, obviously, drafting and registration with the Decision Support Service is going to take some time. Therefore, I am going to adjourn the matter for a period of months, with liberty to apply.

15. I would ask that confirmation of registration be provided on affidavit as soon as practicable following registration of the co-decision-making agreement and if such registration has not occurred in advance, I would ask that a short affidavit be filed, at least 7 days prior to the adjourned date, confirming the efforts made to secure registration.