Background
The self-represented applicant sought leave to bring judicial-review proceedings against the HSE concerning its safeguarding response to concerns about her parents. Her 75-page statement of grounds sought 25 forms of relief and alleged that the HSE had inadequately investigated complaints concerning her father’s capacity, his alleged financial exploitation, and the care arrangements for both parents.
The applicant’s mother had advanced semantic dementia and required full-time care. Her father had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia in the mild-to-moderate range, but a consultant neurologist stated in March 2026 that he had capacity to make his own decisions. The HSE opposed leave, arguing that the applicant lacked standing, had not identified reviewable decisions, was out of time, and had pleaded the case without sufficient specificity.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Barr refused leave. Although the leave threshold is one of arguability—not a requirement to show a reasonable likelihood of success—the applicant’s case was bound to fail on the HSE’s objections.
The applicant had no locus standi to challenge decisions concerning her parents’ care. She was neither an attorney acting under a registered and activated enduring power of attorney nor authorised by the High Court under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 to act for them. The Court also held that her case did not identify specific HSE decisions capable of judicial review, but instead advanced broad complaints about safeguarding conduct from 2022 onward. Any challenge to earlier decisions was outside the three-month period in Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, and the lengthy grounds were impermissibly vague.
Key Takeaways
- A family member cannot ordinarily seek judicial review concerning another adult’s care without lawful authority to act for that person.
- Judicial review must target identifiable decisions or legal acts; it is not a vehicle for a general negligence or service-quality complaint over several years.
- Order 84’s three-month time limit applies to challenges to impugned decisions, absent a justified extension.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes serious safeguarding concerns from the procedural requirements for judicial review. Even where there are allegations of dementia, financial scams and inadequate support, an applicant must have standing, identify reviewable decisions, plead a legally focused case with specificity, and proceed promptly.
It also underscores that capacity concerns do not themselves give a relative authority to litigate for an adult. That authority must come through the relevant legal mechanisms.