Court of Appeal clarifies test for personal welfare deputyship in Re HB

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by the parents of a young man with severe learning disabilities, autism and epilepsy, ruling that a Court of Protection judge was wrong to refuse their application to be appointed his personal welfare deputies.

In Re HB (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960, Sir Stephen Cobb, President of the Family Division and of the Court of Protection, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Nugee, overturned HHJ Beckley's decision in the Court of Protection, which had refused an application by JB and SB to be appointed personal welfare deputies (PWDs) for their 22-year-old son, HB.

HB is non-verbal, lacks capacity in relation to his personal welfare, and has complex needs including a significant feeding and eating disorder and recently diagnosed epilepsy. His parents, described by the original judge as unable to have "done more for their child," had applied jointly and severally to become his PWDs under section 16(2)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, seeking authority over matters including residence, medical treatment, day-to-day care and complaints handling.

HHJ Beckley had refused the application, finding that collaborative decision-making under sections 4 and 5 of the Act had worked in HB's best interests and that appointing deputies would unnecessarily infringe his autonomy as an adult. That decision came shortly after Poole J's judgement in Parr v Cheshire East Council [2026] EWCOP 1, which had reached the opposite conclusion on materially similar facts, a divergence that prompted permission to appeal and reallocation of the case to the Court of Appeal, with the Official Solicitor acting as Advocate to the Court and the Public Guardian joined as intervener.

Giving the leading judgement, Sir Stephen found that the lower court's factual premise, that collaborative working had genuinely served HB's interests, was not supported by the evidence, which instead showed a pattern of parental advocacy overcoming institutional resistance, including a forced tribunal appeal over his schooling and difficulties securing his current residential placement. He also rejected the notion that appointing deputies would infringe HB's autonomy, concluding it could instead enhance his effective participation in decisions by ensuring his wishes and feelings, as understood by those closest to him, were properly reflected.

The court declined to resolve definitively the tension between the more restrictive approach in Lawson, Mottram and Hopton [2019] and the more flexible approach adopted in Parr, but set out a non-exhaustive list of features likely to support a PWD appointment. These include a special relationship between applicant and P, an anticipated "stream" of future decisions, transition from children's to adult services, and evidence that public bodies have failed to properly apply the Act's consultation requirements.

The Public Guardian's evidence, drawn from a witness statement by its Chief Operating Officer, revealed a stark disparity between property and affairs deputyships and personal welfare deputyships, with the latter also tending to run for longer periods without active review. The court endorsed the principle of time-limited orders, particularly for young adults transitioning into adulthood, and remitted the case to a Tier 2 Court of Protection judge to determine the precise scope and duration of HB's deputyship order.