Parents win appeal against refusal of application to be appointed as personal welfare deputies for adult son

In HB, Re (Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputy) [2026] EWCA Civ 960 (24 July 2026), Sir Stephen Cobb, President of the Family Division and President of the Court of Protection concluded that the judge was wrong to refuse the application, finding that the appointment of a deputy would in practice enhance rather than diminish the effectiveness of decision-making for the appellants’ son, HB.

HB has a severe learning disability, is autistic, and is non-verbal. Sir Stephen Cobb said: “There is no dispute that he lacks capacity in very many areas of his life, including decision-making concerning his personal welfare.”

The appellants were HB's parents, JB (father) and SB (mother).

In June 2025, JB and SB applied to be personal welfare deputies (PWDs) for their son, jointly and severally.

They did so with the support of the school where HB had spent many years, the chief executive officer of a national autism charity who knew him, and HB's aunt.

The relevant local authority, which commissions his care, was neutral on the application. There was no opposition to the application.

The application was determined without a hearing, on a consideration of the documents, by HHJ Beckley, who refused the application.

The appellants sought a reconsideration of that decision, and it was listed for an oral hearing earlier this year.

Sir Stephen Cobb noted: “A few days before that listed hearing, Poole J handed down judgment in Parr v Cheshire East Council & another [2026] EWCOP 1 (T3). Following the hearing in this case, the Judge reserved judgment, and for the reasons set out in his judgment reported at [2026] EWCOP 12 (T2), he again refused that application.”

It was against that refusal that the appellants appealed.

Personal welfare deputies are given authority by the Court of Protection to make decisions for people aged 16 or over who lack capacity to make decisions for themselves (known in the Court of Protection as ‘P’).

When the appellants applied for appointment as PWDs on 5 June 2025, they specifically sought authority to deal with a range of matters:

1. Consenting to medical and/or dental examination and treatment on HB’s behalf;
2. Choosing where and with whom he should live, in accordance with section 4 of the MCA 2005, limited to choosing from available options from any public authority;
3. The provision of care services;
4. Matters of day-to-day care, including diet and dress;
5. Whether he should take part in work placement opportunities, leisure or social activities; and
6. Making and conducting complaints about his care or treatment.

Considering the appeal, Sir Stephen Cobb concluded he was “satisfied on the material presented to the court… that [JB and SB] should, jointly and severally, be enabled to exercise the role of [personal welfare deputy] in respect of a wide range of care and welfare issues (broadly as sought by them…), subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in the MCA 2005, for the foreseeable future”.

He found that contrary to the conclusion of HHJ Beckley, the evidence did not show that there was a “good history of collaborative decision-making regarding HB which had worked in HB’s best interests.” In reality, HB’s parents had fought throughout HB’s life to secure appropriate provision for him.

Meanwhile, he found that HHJ Beckley was not precluded from granting decision-making authority in respect of decisions on day-to-day care, including diet and dress.

He said: “The standard form of application / order (which the Appellants adopted) contemplates that an order may be sought in respect of 'decisions on day-to-day care, including diet and dress';

“As a matter of fact, the Appellants had made clear that they did not want to be involved in micro-managing HB’s life;

“In any event, the Judge had the statutory power to determine the scope of the PWD; section 16(6) permits the Judge to make the appointment 'on such terms as it considers are in P’s best interests'. Thus, the Judge was not limited to exercising a straight binary choice of granting or refusing the application.”

Sir Stephen Cobb also found that HHJ Beckley failed adequately to distinguish Parr v Cheshire East Council & another [2026] EWCOP 1 (T3), a materially similar case in which a personal welfare deputy was appointed, without sufficient explanation for reaching a different outcome.

In the judgment, the President provided guidelines on when personal welfare deputyship may be appropriate, noting that such cases may include some or all of the following features:

• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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 (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;
• Decision-making in the foreseeable future needs to be prompt and agile in order to respond to an evolving set of circumstances.

Allowing the appeal, Sir Stephen Cobb said: “I conclude that the Judge was wrong to refuse this application by JB and SB for PWD orders in respect of their son; I would accordingly allow the appeal.

“I would propose to grant the application of the Appellants; I am satisfied on the material presented to this court (which was in all material respects the same as that before the Judge) that they 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 as they are set out in the MCA 2005, for the foreseeable future.

“On this appeal we have not received detailed submissions on the precise scope and/or, more specifically, the duration of any deputyship order; I note that the Public Guardian supports the grant of time-bound PWD orders generally (see §9 below: “…especially beneficial in cases where the protected person is a young adult”). I would therefore propose to direct that the Appellants’ application be remitted to a Tier 2 judge of the Court of Protection (to be allocated by the senior Court of Protection Judge) for determination of those particular issues.”

Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Nugee agreed.

Alex Rook, Partner acting for the Appellants, said: “JB’s and SB’s sole focus throughout these proceedings has been HB’s welfare and ensuring that his best interests were promoted; the judgment rightly recognises that they are ‘loving and caring parents, completely committed to HB.’  They did not set out to change the law; they simply sought authority for the arrangements they believed were in HB’s best interests. However, through this process they identified a lack of consistency in how applications for the appointment of personal welfare deputies were being determined and the resulting uncertainty created significant challenges for those seeking to support their loved ones. We are therefore extremely pleased, not only with the outcome for HB, but with the welcome clarity this judgment brings for countless other families in similar circumstances.”

HB’s parents were represented by Alex Rook and Katie Sinclair of Rook Irwin Sweeney, and Steve Broach KC and Francesca Gardner of 39 Essex Chambers.

Lottie Winson