17/08/2026
On 24 July 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Re HB (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960. The case considers when it is appropriate to appoint personal welfare deputies under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ("MCA") and is of particular relevance to families supporting adults with profound disabilities, especially where there is an ongoing need for welfare decisions, difficulties engaging with public authorities, or significant transitions in care and support arrangements.
HB is a 22-year-old man with profound autism, a severe learning disability and complex care needs. He lacks capacity to make many decisions concerning his personal welfare. His parents applied to the Court of Protection to be appointed as his personal welfare deputies, seeking authority to make a range of welfare decisions on his behalf, including decisions about care, accommodation, activities and healthcare.
The application was initially refused by the Court of Protection. The judge considered that the MCA's existing framework for collaborative decision-making was sufficient and that appointing welfare deputies would represent an unnecessary intrusion into HB's autonomy. HB's parents appealed.
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that HB's parents should be appointed as personal welfare deputies in principle, with the detailed scope and duration of the appointment to be determined by the Court of Protection.
Background and the Position Before HB
A personal welfare deputy is a person appointed by the Court of Protection under the MCA 2005 to make specified health and welfare decisions on behalf of an individual ("P") who lacks capacity to make those decisions for themselves.
Such appointments have, historically, been rare and have been limited to cases in which P requires countless day-to-day welfare decisions and significant future decisions about treatment, residence and care.
Instead, it was considered that stakeholders should utilise the MCA's existing best interests framework.
The Court of Appeal's decision
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that decisions regarding welfare deputyships remain firmly rooted in the MCA framework and must be determined on a fact-specific assessment of the person's best interests. However, the Court rejected any suggestion that welfare deputyships should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.
A key feature of the judgment is the Court's assessment of the practical realities of decision-making in HB's case. The evidence demonstrated that HB's parents had repeatedly been required to challenge public authorities and professionals in order to secure appropriate education, healthcare and support. The Court concluded that this was not an example of successful collaborative decision-making and that the appointment of deputies would enhance, rather than undermine, effective decision-making for HB.
The Court also recognised that there may be circumstances where an individual faces a continuing stream of welfare decisions, making it more appropriate for a trusted deputy to assist with ongoing decision-making than to require repeated court applications.
Key points arising from the judgment
Of note is paragraph 63 of the judgment, where provides the following list of features which may support the appointment of a personal welfare deputy:
- The proposed deputy stands in some special relationship in relation to P;
- 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 the proposed deputy, to make choices for them as an individual human being;
- In circumstances in which it is likely that more than one decision will need to be made in the foreseeable future;
- 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;
- The appointment may be particularly appropriate where it can be shown that public bodies have failed, or threaten to fail, properly to apply the MCA framework, particularly in relation to consultation with families;
- Decision-making in the foreseeable future needs to be prompt and agile in order to respond to an evolving set of circumstances.
What does this mean in practice?
The decision does not create a presumption in favour of welfare deputyships, nor does it alter the fundamental principles of the MCA. The Court of Protection will continue to assess each application on its individual facts and will remain mindful that any deputyship should be proportionate and no more restrictive than necessary.
However, HB signals a clear shift away from an overly restrictive approach to welfare deputyship applications. The judgment confirms that personal welfare deputyships remain an active and important part of the MCA framework and should be considered where they are capable of promoting effective, person-centred decision-making.
Comment
The Court of Appeal's decision in Re HB is likely to prompt renewed consideration of personal welfare deputyship applications, particularly in cases involving young adults with complex disabilities, transitions between services, and situations where families seek a greater role in ongoing welfare decision-making.
Our Health & Care Regulatory team is well placed to support public sector clients in navigating this evolving area of law.
For insights and updates from across the health and care sector, follow our dedicated NHS Health & Care LinkedIn page today.
How we can help
If you wish to discuss any queries you may have around deputyships or the Court of Protection please contact Amrita Hurst, Julia Jones or Hannah Taylor.
