Professional Welfare Deputies: the Court of Appeal Hands Down Landmark Judgment

39 Essex Chambers’ barristers Steve Broach KC and Francesca P. Gardner appeared for the appellants in this landmark judgment from the Court of Appeal: Re HB (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of HHJ Beckley in Re HDEB [2026] EWCOP 12, and in doing so provides significant and important guidance as to the approach that should be taken to applications relating to the appointment of Personal Welfare Deputies (“PWDs”).

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the first appellate authority to consider the appointment of PWDS in the Court of Protection. The appeal concerned a decision, made by HHJ Beckley in February 2026, refusing the appellants’ application to be appointed as PWDs for their adult son. In a unanimous decision, the Court overturned the decision on HHJ Beckley and determined that the court was “satisfied on the material presented to the court… that [JB and SB] should, jointly and severally, be enabled to exercise the role of [PWD] in respect of a wide range of care and welfare issues, subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in the MCA 2005, for the foreseeable future.”

The court provided the much-needed guidance as to when PWDs may be appropriate, which 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.

Steve Broach KC and Francesca P. Gardner were instructed by Alex Rook and Katie Sinclair of Rook Irwin Sweeney. 39 Essex Chambers’ barrister, Alex Ruck Keene KC (Hon) appeared for the Official Solicitor, acting as advocate to the court.

The full judgment can be found: here