The Supreme Court is to hear an appeal “potentially of significance” to vulnerable people awaiting discharge from the High Court’s wardship system. It relates to legal representation in discharge applications. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 provides for the phasing-out of the wardship system, replacing it with a new approach with tiered decision-making offerings. The Act mandated the discharge of all wards from the court’s wardship system by April. However, recent amendments allow for a discharge deadline in October 2027 in exceptional circumstances.In the case of each ward of court, a discharge application must be brought to initiate the process of ending wardship. The case now before the Supreme Court arises from a discharge application in respect of a woman with a mild intellectual disability living in a care home.A half-sister of a ward of court is appealing a High Court decision refusing the half-sister’s application to be appointed as decision-making representative for the ward’s “personal welfare decisions” following discharge.Judge David Nolan had instead ordered the appointment of a decision-making representative from a panel maintained by the Decision Support Service, part of the Mental Health Commission. The judge made the appointment following an application moved by an independent solicitor, who was instructed by the general solicitor for wards of court, acting on behalf of the woman in the care home. When the ward of court was first admitted to wardship, the general solicitor was appointed as the ward’s committee.The half-sister, a qualified social worker, had submitted the woman had agreed to her acting as her decision-making representative. The half-sister said the general solicitor’s views did not represent the ward’s views and said – given the solicitor moving the discharge application was representing the general solicitor – the ward should be separately represented in the application. Nolan rejected this argument, stating the general solicitor – and the independent solicitor retained by the general solicitor – were acting in the ward’s best interests. In a determination published this week, a Supreme Court panel agreed the half-sister’s appeal raised issues of public importance.The court noted the appeal raised questions around how a ward subject to a discharge application should be legally represented. It also raised issues around the conferral of powers on the decision-making representative of a discharged ward, the panel said. The issues raised are potentially of significance to “the significant number of wards of court” awaiting discharge, the judges said. “The issues potentially raise important issues relating to the right of the ward to be adequately heard in proceedings under the 2015 Act, as well as the extent to which the Act requires an order appointing a [decision-making representative] to be targeted to identify the specific areas in which the person lacks capacity,” the panel noted. The judges said the Supreme Court had not yet considered the 2015 Act. They granted permission for the appeal and said the case would get a priority hearing.