HSE v DD (Approved) [2025] IEHC 353 (03 June 2025)

HSE v DD (Approved) [2025] IEHC 353 (03 June 2025)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent lacks capacity to make personal welfare decisions. A structured, multidisciplinary assessment in a standalone unit is necessary and cannot be conducted at home. The proposed placement is the least restrictive means of vindicating the respondent's constitutional rights to health and bodily integrity, and the deprivation of liberty is justified, necessary, and proportionate. The court's inherent jurisdiction is engaged due to the legislative lacuna, and the orders sought are granted with safeguards including periodic review and a transition plan.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 353
Parties
Applicant: HSE; Respondent: DD; Guardian Ad Litem: Ms. Maria Dillon; Objector: Respondent's mother
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Inherent Jurisdiction (personal Welfare/capacity) / Final Ruling on Application for Transfer and Assessment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Deprivation of Liberty, Personal Welfare Decisions, Capacity Assessment, Best Interests, Transition Planning
Mental Capacity Law Constitutional Law Health Law Inherent Jurisdiction Deprivation of Liberty Personal Welfare Decisions Capacity Assessment Best Interests +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HSE

Applicant

DD

Respondent

Ms. Maria Dillon

Guardian Ad Litem

Respondent's mother

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Inherent Jurisdiction (personal Welfare/capacity) / Final Ruling on Application for Transfer and Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lacks capacity to make personal welfare decisions
  2. 2 Whether the proposed transfer and assessment is necessary and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to authorise the placement and deprivation of liberty

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent lacks capacity to make personal welfare decisions. A structured, multidisciplinary assessment in a standalone unit is necessary and cannot be conducted at home. The proposed placement is the least restrictive means of vindicating the respondent's constitutional rights to health and bodily integrity, and the deprivation of liberty is justified, necessary, and proportionate. The court's inherent jurisdiction is engaged due to the legislative lacuna, and the orders sought are granted with safeguards including periodic review and a transition plan.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Transfer of the respondent to the proposed placement for a structured period of assessment (12-16 weeks) authorised under the court's inherent jurisdiction.
  • Development of a sensitive transition plan with family and professional input within two weeks.