Personal Welfare Deputyships: Court of Appeal Clarifies When the Court Will Appoint a Welfare Deputy

The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in JB & Another v Official Solicitor[1] is one of the most significant welfare deputyship judgments in recent years, given the rarity of such appointments. For families caring for vulnerable adults who lack capacity, it provides valuable guidance on when the Court of Protection may be prepared to appoint a personal welfare deputy.

Given how rare welfare deputyships are, the decision will be welcomed by many families who find themselves repeatedly battling professionals and public bodies to secure appropriate care and support for a loved one.

Why is this case important?

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows the Court of Protection to appoint deputies for both property and financial affairs and personal welfare matters. However, welfare deputyships are exceptionally uncommon.

The Court of Appeal noted that in 2025 the Office of the Public Guardian received more than 12,500 property and affairs deputyship orders, compared with only 174 personal welfare deputyship orders. The reason is that welfare decisions are usually expected to be made through the Mental Capacity Act’s collaborative best interests framework rather than by granting decision-making authority to one individual.

This case demonstrates that, despite the courts’ cautious approach, welfare deputyships remain an important option where the facts justify them.

The facts

HB was a 22-year-old man with severe learning disabilities, autism and epilepsy. He was non-verbal and lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his welfare. His parents had dedicated their lives to supporting him and had an exceptional understanding of his needs, behaviours and communication methods.

Over many years, they had been forced to challenge decisions made by public authorities in order to secure suitable education, care and residential placements. Despite there being no opposition to their application, and despite support from professionals who knew HB well, their request to be appointed as personal welfare deputies was initially refused by the Court of Protection.

The judge originally concluded that collaborative decision-making had worked effectively and that appointing welfare deputies would unnecessarily interfere with HB’s autonomy.

The Court of Appeal overturns the decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the appeal. Most importantly, it found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that collaborative decision-making had worked well in practice.

The parents had repeatedly needed to intervene to correct poor decisions and secure services that genuinely met HB’s needs. The court held that these examples demonstrated failures in the decision-making process rather than successful collaboration.

The judgment also recognised that some individuals require a continuing stream of significant welfare decisions. In those circumstances, repeatedly returning to court may not be practical or beneficial. A carefully tailored welfare deputyship can provide consistent and informed decision-making by people who know the individual best.

Key principles from the judgment

The Court of Appeal declined to create a strict test but identified several factors that may support the appointment of a personal welfare deputy:

• The proposed deputy has a special relationship with P and a unique understanding of their wishes, feelings and communication;
• The deputyship would help ensure P’s wishes, beliefs and values are reflected in decisions;
• A series of significant welfare decisions is expected in the future;
• P is transitioning from childhood into adulthood and facing changes in services and support;
• There is evidence that public authorities have failed, or are likely to fail, to properly involve family members in decision-making; and
• Decisions need to be made promptly and flexibly in response to changing circumstances.

Importantly, the court emphasised that welfare deputyships should be limited in scope and duration wherever possible.

Whilst this judgment does not open the floodgates for welfare deputyship applications, it does provide a clearer route to judging whether an application will succeed. Applicants will need to show more than a desire to be consulted or involved. The strongest cases will be those where there is clear evidence of a close and trusted relationship with P, a pattern of significant future welfare decisions, shortcomings in existing decision-making arrangements and a genuine need for consistent authority to act in P’s best interests. As this case demonstrates, where a family member is uniquely placed to understand and advocate for a vulnerable adult, and where collaborative processes have failed to provide adequate protection, the Court of Protection may be persuaded that the rare step of appointing a personal welfare deputy is both necessary and in that person’s best interests.

[1] [2026] EWCA Civ 960