Court declares capacity for welfare but lacks capacity for property affairs, requiring a co-decision-maker.

THE HIGH COURT

WARDS OF COURT

[2026] IEHC 356

[WOC 5423]

IN THE MATTER OF T, A WARD OF COURT, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 55 OF THE ASSISTED DECISION-MAKING (CAPACITY) ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF A DISPUTE OVER THE APPOINTMENT OF A CO-

DECISION-MAKER

RESPONDENT

Ex Tempore Ruling of Mr. Justice Mark Heslin delivered on the 10th day of March 2026

Introduction

1. I will give a ruling in relation to this application but before doing so, I want to welcome Ms. [T]. There is no-one more important, today, than Ms. [T]. This is her Court, and this is an application concerning her leaving Wardship. I also want to welcome Ms. [U] and Ms. [V] who have accompanied her and who plainly love Ms. [T] very much.

Certain facts

2. I see from the papers before me that Ms. [T] was born in [the 1990s] and has diagnoses of cerebral palsy and a mild learning disability. Very sadly she was also involved in a road traffic accident [in childhood].

Wardship

3. She was admitted to Wardship in [year given] and her mother and sister, Ms. [U] and Ms. [V], respectively, are committee of her person. On her admission to Wardship, the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court (“the General Solicitor”) was appointed as committee of the respondent’s estate.

Capacity (s.2 and s.3)

4. Today's application is ‘grounded’ on an affidavit sworn by the committee of Ms. [T]'s person on 14 January. This refers to and exhibits medical evidence in the form of a report of 18 June of last year by Dr. [W] who is a consultant psychiatrist. Dr. [W] also provided an addendum report of

13 February 2026 confirming that her views remain as expressed in her detailed report on 18 June.

Functional assessment

5. Dr. [W] carried out an assessment of Ms. [T]'s capacity to make decisions in relation to her “personal welfare” and her “property and affairs”, both of which terms are defined in s.2 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) and did so on a functional basis as required by s.3 of the 2015 Act.

6. Dr. [W] formed the view that Ms. [T] does not lack functional capacity to make decisions in relation to her personal welfare, stating, among other things, that the respondent “…appeared to have a good understanding of her care needs…”. Dr. [W] also found the respondent to be able to retain, and to weigh-up information, and to communicate, with assistance.

7. Dr. [W] went on to find that “…regarding larger sums of money…” Ms. [T] “…has a limited ability to understand information…” and “…lacks capacity, unless the assistance of a suitable person as a co-decision-maker is made available to her regarding her financial affairs”.

Service

8. In addition to the committee's affidavit, I also have the benefit of an affidavit of service sworn by Ms. Ann Marie Lynch, solicitor, on 16 January of this year. It is clear from her averments

- in other words, the facts which she swears to be correct - that service was properly effected and that appropriate efforts were made to explain the nature of this application to Ms. [T].

Views

9. It is also clear that efforts were made to ascertain her views, and it is Ms. [T]’s clearly and consistently expressed wish that she wants her mother and sister to assist her in relation to managing her money.

Assets

10. The application includes details of Ms. [T]'s assets and a schedule is exhibited, and her assets are substantial and are not straightforward.

11. The application before me also includes a financial and investment plan which the committee of the person obtained and which was prepared, in January this year, by named financial professionals. However, that is not the only evidence before me.

Notice

12. For whatever reason, it appears that the committee of the respondent's estate – being the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court - was not, initially at least, put on notice of the application to discharge Ms. [T], which application is for a member of the committee of her person to act as her co-decision-maker going forward in relation to property and affairs decisions.

Concerns

13. The committee of the respondent's estate is now on notice, and the evidence before me includes averments made in two affidavits sworn on behalf of the General Solicitor on 29 January 2026 and on 9 March 2026. They raise a number of issues and concerns in relation to Ms. [T]'s property and financial affairs and I have also noted the averments made in response, in particular to the first affidavit, sworn by Ms. Duffy on behalf of the committee of the estate. I have noted further the helpful submission made on behalf of the applicant today.

Payments

14. Concerns are raised by the committee of the estate relating to payments said to have been made directly to the committee of the person which, it is averred, were made without the approval of the Wards of Court Office.

Vouching

15. Other issues raised by the committee of the estate include what is described as long-standing concerns on the General Solicitor’s part regarding the vouching of expenditure.

Property

16. Concerns are also raised due to the difficulty encountered by the General Solicitor in identifying precisely who has been residing in properties owned by Ms. [T].

Works

17. Concern is also raised regarding works which would appear to have been carried out to Ms. [T]'s properties without the consent of this Court and what is potentially an attempt to rent out Ms. [T]'s property without any reference to this Court.

Income

18. Other issues raised by the committee of the estate include the question of an apparent conflict arising from the occupation of Ms. [T]'s property by family members. On that issue it would appear that, at present, the respondent is not receiving income from one of her properties (a property which she does not herself occupy) which appears to be occupied by family.

Financial plan

19. Concerns are also raised in relation to proposals in the financial plan including reservations on the part of the committee of the estate regarding the post-discharge level of proposed expenditure.

Love and trust

20. At this point, I want to make ‘crystal’ clear that in referring to this evidence I am not for a moment suggesting that the committee of Ms. [T]'s person, or any other family member, do not love her deeply and sincerely and, vice versa. Nor am I suggesting that she does not trust them. I am also taking full account of Ms. [T]'s expressed, and, consistently expressed, wishes to the effect that the committee, whom she trusts, would assist her going forward and the proposal is that the co-decision-maker would be drawn from the committee of the person.

Conflict of interest

21. However, having carefully considered the entirety of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that it allows for a finding that, in these particular circumstances, a conflict of interest or a potential conflict arises, which prevents the committee of the person from being able to perform, at this point, the functions of a co-decision-maker.

22. I take this view without reaching any conclusions in relation to the issues of concern raised by the committee of the respondent’s estate.

Viewed objectively

23. However, the nature and number of the concerns raised by the General Solicitor (all of which relate to Ms. [T]'s property and affairs) mean that when, viewed from an objective standpoint, a conflict or potential conflict arises which prevents family members from being able to perform the functions of a co-decision-maker with respect to Ms. [T]'s property and affairs at this time.

24. I am fortified in this view by the fact that the respondent’s family members have no particular financial expertise, yet the assets of Ms. [T] are extensive and are not straightforward.

25. In light of the evidence before me - in particular, uncontested medical evidence - it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate that this Court make the following declarations.

Declarations

26. The first declaration is to declare, pursuant to s.55(1)(a) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, that Ms. [T] does not lack capacity to make personal welfare decisions.

27. The second declaration is pursuant to s.55 (1)(b)(i) and that is to declare that Ms. [T] lacks capacity to make a one or more decisions in relation to her property and affairs unless the assistance of a suitable co-decision-maker is made available to her.

S.38(7)(a)

28. On the evidence before me - which I have carefully considered in ‘granular’ terms, but summarised in ‘headline’ terms in this ruling - there is no family member who, at this point in time, can carry out the role of co-decision-maker for property and affairs decisions (and there is no other suitable person). This is a situation which the 2015 Act envisages and it is addressed in s.38.

Bearing this in mind, I am going to request that the Director of the Decision Support Service make nominations pursuant to s.38(7)(a) - i.e. nominations for a decision-making representative (or “DMR”) for property and affairs decisions, only.

Autonomy

29. In the manner provided for in the 2015 Act, this will not lessen in any way Ms. [T]'s autonomy. This is because the DMR (to be approved by the President, from the nominations by the Director of the Decision Support Service) is required under s.41 of the 2015 Act (and the word “shall” is used”) to “…ensure, in so far as practicable, that he or she jointly make decisions with the relevant person” (emphasis added).

Final Words

30. Having made the relevant declarations and having directed that nominations be made by the Decision Support Service Director, I am not in a position to make a formal order discharging Ms. [T] from Wardship today, but I am very grateful to her for coming along. I see that she is someone with a wide range of interests and someone who enjoys a very active life, including, swimming, attending the gym, chair football, and enjoying, in particular, the company of her dogs. I note she also enjoys social outings, shopping-trips and holidays abroad, and I see that she is someone working hard to develop further her independence. Nothing I decided today is going to take away from that.