Re HB [2026] EWCA Civ 960: a turning point for personal welfare deputyships?

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Re HB (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960 is likely to be one of the most significant Court of Protection judgments in recent years. It provides long-awaited guidance on when a personal welfare deputy should be appointed and signals a move away from the historically restrictive approach to such applications.

For many families supporting adults who lack capacity, the judgment represents recognition that some individuals require ongoing decision-making support from those who know them best.

What is a personal welfare deputy?

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), the Court of Protection can appoint a deputy to make decisions on behalf of a person who lacks capacity.

While property and financial affairs deputyships are relatively common, personal welfare deputyships, covering health, care and welfare decisions, have traditionally been difficult to obtain. The Court has generally preferred issue-specific decisions or best interests decision-making by professionals, leaving many families heavily involved in care arrangements but without formal legal authority when disagreements arise.

The facts of Re HB

HB is an adult who lacks capacity to make relevant welfare decisions. His parents applied to be appointed as his personal welfare deputies, arguing that they were best placed to coordinate decisions about his care and welfare.

The Court of Protection refused the application, concluding there had been a history of collaborative decision-making and expressing concern about extending parental decision-making into adulthood.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. It found that HB’s parents had spent years advocating for him and that appointing them as deputies would enhance, rather than undermine, his participation in decision-making.

Key guidance from the Court of Appeal

The Court identified factors which may support the appointment of a personal welfare deputy, including:

• a special relationship with the person lacking capacity
• the need to ensure the person’s wishes, feelings, beliefs and values are understood and given effect
• an anticipated stream of ongoing welfare decisions
• difficulties arising during transition from children’s to adult services
• failures by public authorities to properly apply the Mental Capacity Act framework
• circumstances requiring prompt and flexible decision-making.

Significantly, the Court rejected reliance on abstract notions of autonomy as a reason to refuse deputyship, emphasising that the focus should remain on the statutory principles of the MCA 2005, including best interests, participation and the least restrictive option.

Why this case matters

The decision shifts the focus away from whether welfare deputyships should be treated as exceptional and towards a more practical question: would appointing a deputy improve decision-making for the individual concerned?

Many families act as advocates, coordinators and protectors of vulnerable adults throughout their lives, yet often struggle to obtain formal authority when disputes arise with public bodies. The Court of Appeal has now recognised that ongoing welfare deputyship may, in appropriate cases, be both necessary and beneficial.

A personal perspective

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this judgment is that it has taken nearly 20 years since the implementation of the MCA 2005 for the Court of Appeal to provide such clear guidance on personal welfare deputyships.

The MCA rightly promotes autonomy and independence wherever possible. However, the practical reality is that some individuals who lack capacity require support with a continuing series of interrelated welfare decisions over many years. For too long, there has been a reluctance to acknowledge this.

Many families may feel this judgment validates what they have argued for years: they are not seeking control over their relative’s life, but a legal framework that enables their loved one’s wishes, needs and interests to be effectively represented.

Particularly important is the Court’s recognition that deputyship can enhance a person’s participation in decision-making rather than diminish it.

Will this give families more hope?

There is reason to believe it will, particularly for parents of young adults who lack capacity.

Historically, families have often been advised that welfare deputyship applications are unlikely to succeed except in exceptional circumstances. This judgment is likely to give families greater confidence that the Court is willing to consider welfare deputyship where the evidence supports it.

The decision also acknowledges a reality familiar to many practitioners: families often possess unique knowledge of a person’s communication methods, routines, preferences and wishes that cannot easily be replicated by professionals.

Wider implications

The case may also have implications beyond deputyship applications.

The Court specifically recognised that failures by public authorities to properly apply the MCA framework may support the appointment of a welfare deputy. As a result, local authorities, integrated care boards and care providers may face greater scrutiny of their decision-making processes and engagement with families.

The judgment may also reignite debate about how the MCA operates for young adults with lifelong disabilities as they transition into adult services, an area where families frequently encounter difficulties navigating complex and fragmented systems.

The Birketts view

Re HB is a landmark decision that broadens the circumstances in which personal welfare deputyships may be considered appropriate. While it does not create a presumption in favour of deputyship, and each case will be considered on its facts, it provides welcome clarity for families and practitioners alike.

Most importantly, the judgment recognises a practical reality: in some cases, empowering those who know a person best is not inconsistent with autonomy, dignity or participation. It may be the most effective way of protecting and promoting them.

How we can help

At Birketts LLP, our Court of Protection team regularly helps clients with personal welfare considerations. If you would like to talk things through or get advice tailored to your situation, we would be very happy to help. Just get in touch with our team.