Re HB (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960
Judge: Sir Stephen Cobb (President of the Family Division and the Court of Protection), with whom King LJ and Nugee LJ agreed
Date: 24 July 2026
Background
HB was a 22-year-old man with severe learning disabilities, autism and epilepsy. He was non-verbal and required intensive support in all aspects of his daily life. He resided at a residential college placement. There was no dispute that he lacked capacity to make decisions concerning his personal welfare. His parents, JB and SB, had been closely involved in his care throughout his life.
In June 2025, HB’s parents applied to be appointed as his Personal Welfare Deputies (PWDs) under s.16(2)(b) Mental Capacity Act 2005. They sought authority in relation to matters including medical treatment, residence, care arrangements, social activities and complaints concerning HB’s care. The application was supported by professionals involved in HB’s life and was not opposed by any party.
The Court of Protection refused the application. HHJ Beckley concluded that collaborative decision-making under ss.4 and 5 MCA 2005 had worked effectively in HB’s case and that appointing welfare deputies would constitute an unnecessary infringement of his autonomy. Any disagreements over major decisions, such as residence, should be resolved by the Court of Protection rather than PWDs.
JB and SB appealed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the judge had been wrong to refuse the application. The matter was remitted to the Court of Protection to determine the precise scope and duration of the deputyship order, but the Court of Appeal made clear that HB’s parents should be appointed as PWDs.
A central feature of the judgment was the Court of Appeal’s finding that the evidence did not support the conclusion that collaborative decision-making had worked effectively for HB. On the contrary, the parents had repeatedly been required to challenge local authority decisions concerning educational placements, residential provision and healthcare in order to secure outcomes that were in HB’s best interests.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the suggestion that welfare deputyships should be viewed as exceptional. While s.16(4) MCA 2005 requires courts to prefer judicial decision-making over deputyship where appropriate, there is no presumption against appointing a welfare deputy. The pertinent question is whether that appointment is in P’s best interests.
The Court of Appeal identified a number of factors (para 63) that may favour deputyship, including a close familial relationship, the ability to understand and represent P’s wishes and feelings, the prospect of ongoing welfare decisions, failures by public bodies to engage effectively with families and the need for prompt and agile decision-making.
Importantly, Sir Stephen Cobb questioned the usefulness of “autonomy” as the determining concept in welfare deputyship cases, describing it as an over-used term. He observed that autonomy is not a statutory criterion under the MCA 2005 and described it as an inappropriate tool for determining whether a deputyship order should be granted given the broad spectrum of disability covered by the MCA, and the differing ability to exercise any degree of autonomy. The court held that, in cases such as HB’s, appointing a deputy may actually enhance P’s participation in decision-making by ensuring that decisions are taken by those best able to understand and communicate P’s wishes, feelings and preferences.
Comment
This is the first appellate authority to provide detailed guidance on the appointment of Personal Welfare Deputies. The judgment is likely to encourage applications in appropriate cases, particularly where a young person with lifelong disabilities is transitioning into adult services and where a series of significant welfare decisions is anticipated.
It is notable that in 2025, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) received over 12,500 deputyship orders relating to property and affairs, compared with just 174 concerning personal welfare, although according to the OPG the number of personal welfare deputyships is steadily increasing. 95% of personal welfare deputyships are held by lay family members.
Overall, Re HB marks a new direction in Court of Protection practice concerning welfare deputies. Whilst reaffirming the importance of collaborative decision-making under the MCA 2005, it recognises that welfare deputyship may be the most effective mechanism for ensuring that the wishes, feelings and welfare of profoundly disabled adults are properly reflected in ongoing decision-making.
The full judgment can be found here.
