Rosie Campbell, PDF Health & Welfare Committee Member and Associate Solicitor at Rook Irwin Sweeney has prepared the following:

The Court of Appeal has handed down its first ever judgment on applications for personal welfare deputyship, providing much-needed clarity about the circumstances in which deputies should be appointed. In Re HB (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960, the Court allowed the appeal by JB and SB, parents of HB, against the Court of Protection’s refusal of their application to be appointed as personal welfare deputies for their son, paving the way for their appointment.

The unanimous decision by Sir Stephen Cobb (President of the Family Division of the High Court and the Family Court and President of the Court of Protection), Lady Justice King, and Lord Justice Nugee, overturns the earlier decision of HHJ Beckley sitting as a Judge of the Court of Protection. Sir Stephen Cobb, giving the leading judgment, found that he was “satisfied on the material presented to the court… that [JB and SB] should, jointly and severally, be enabled to exercise the role of [personal welfare deputy] in respect of a wide range of care and welfare issues (broadly as sought by them…), subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in the MCA 2005, for the foreseeable future”.

In its judgment, the Court provided guidelines on when personal welfare deputyship may be appropriate; such cases may include some or all of the following features:

1. The applicant for the personal welfare deputyship stands in some special relationship in relation to P, such as in this case where the applicants are his parents with a special ability to understand and communicate with and for P;
2. Where P’s wishes and feelings, their beliefs and values and the things which are important to them would be likely to be enhanced by the appointment of a personal welfare deputyship, to make choices for them as an individual human being;
3. In circumstances in which it is likely that more than one decision will need to be made in the foreseeable future; a series or “stream” of decisions in respect of P is reasonably anticipated;
4. When P is moving from childhood to adulthood and transitioning between children’s and adult’s services, where it may well be in P’s best interests to have someone acting as his agent for decision-making; transitional difficulties for young adults with lifelong impairments may justify short-term solutions;
5. The appointment may be particularly appropriate where it can be shown (as here) that public bodies have failed, or threaten to fail, properly to apply the MCA 2005 framework, particularly in relation to consultation with families;
6. Decision-making in the foreseeable future needs to be prompt and agile in order to respond to an evolving set of circumstances.

In relation to the appeal by HB’s parents, the Court found that:

1. Contrary to the conclusion of HHJ Beckley, the evidence did not show that there was a “good history of collaborative decision-making regarding HB which had worked in HB’s best interests.” In reality, HB’s parents had fought lengthy battles throughout HB’s life to secure appropriate provision for him.
2. HHJ Beckley erred by determining the application with reference to HB’s autonomy, the Court finding that the concept of autonomy is an uncertain and inapposite tool for determining whether a deputyship order should be made. The focus should instead be on the statutory framework; beyond this, considerations of dignity and quality of life provide a more useful and concrete analytical framework. The court is tasked with applying the least restrictive option, supporting and enabling P’s decision-making, and giving appropriate weight to P’s wishes and feelings. The Court found that the appointment of a deputy would in practice enhance rather than diminish the effectiveness of decision-making for HB, and may increase, rather than reduce, HB’s ability to influence the course of his life. In essence, granting personal welfare deputyships to HB’s parents would likely enable HB’s greater participation in decision-making, having regard to his wishes and feelings, and thus enhance his quality of life.
3. Appointing HB’s parents as personal welfare deputies would not result in undue risk aversion, nor involve an impermissible extension of parental responsibility into adulthood; principles which Mr Justice Hayden warned against in Lawson, Mottram and Hopton (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputies) [2019] 1 WLR 5164.
4. HHJ Beckley failed  adequately to distinguish Parr v Cheshire East Council & another [2026] EWCOP 1 (T3)  – a materially similar case in which a personal welfare deputy was appointed – without sufficient explanation for reaching a different outcome.
5. HHJ Beckley was not precluded from granting decision-making authority in respect of “decisions on day-to-day care, including diet and dress”. The standard form of application / order expressly contemplates authority in this area and, on the evidence, there was no suggestion that HB’s parents sought to micro-manage HB’s daily life. In any event, HHJ Beckley erred in refusing the application in its entirety, rather than narrowing or tailoring the scope of any deputyship order so as to address the specific concerns he had identified.

The appellants’ application was remitted to a Tier 2 judge of the Court of Protection for determination as to the precise scope and duration of the personal welfare deputyship order and a listing for that hearing is awaited.

This landmark judgment gives welcome clarity to practitioners and families alike. In recent years, the Court of Protection’s approach to personal welfare deputyship applications has often been perceived by practitioners as restrictive and inconsistent. The Court of Appeal’s guidance offers a much clearer framework for applicants in terms of the factors that may be considered by the court, and is likely to result in personal welfare deputies being appointed more frequently than has been the case in recent years.

HB’s parents are represented by Alex Rook and Katie Sinclair of Rook Irwin Sweeney, and Steve Broach KC and Francesca Gardner of 39 Essex Chambers.

Alex Rook will be presenting a webinar on 8th September for PDF Members

Prepared by Rosie Campbell, Rook Irwin Sweeney & PDF Health & Welfare Committee Member

11 August 2026