M -v- M High Court Judgment was given by Mr Justice John Hedigan on October 30th, 2009. JUDGMENTThe court found that the advance of age had deprived an elderly woman of some of the mental capacities essential to the management of her complex affairs and therefore found, "in the archaic and inappropriate language of the statute", her to be a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing her person and property.
BACKGROUND
The case concerned a woman who, according to the medical evidence accepted by the court, suffered from an acquired cognitive impairment compatible with a dementia syndrome most likely secondary to cerebrovascular disease.
She had settled into a nursing home and had stabilised and improved and her cognitive impairment showed a slower progression than expected.
She owned substantial property in a mix of real estate, bank accounts, post office investments, prize bonds and shares, and was a beneficiary in the estate of her late husband.
The petitioner in the case was her son, who asked the court to determine whether she was "of unsound mind and incapable of managing her person and property". The woman herself, along with her daughter, contested the application.
The court remarked that there was a history of discord in the family. The son was for a substantial time estranged from his parents and his sister, although a reconciliation was achieved by his father before his death.
However, the difficulties were resurrected by the court application and the relationship between the three was now "characterised by suspicion, distrust and misunderstanding", the judge said.
Mr Justice Hedigan said that the hearing may have laid to rest some of the suspicions. He found that the petitioner (the son) had not misappropriated savings or share certificates or title deeds, which were at all times in the possession of the father's solicitor.
This was known by the father, but not by the other members of the family. Misunderstandings concerning the attitude of the son to his father's will were also resolved.
The son also said during the hearing that he had no wish to be appointed the "committee" of his mother's person or property in the event of her being found "of unsound mind".
The court heard evidence from the woman's GP, from a consultant psychiatrist and a medical visitor on behalf of the president of the High Court, as well as from a second psychiatrist on behalf of the woman. It also heard evidence from the woman and her son and daughter.
Three of the doctors - the woman's GP, the first psychiatrist who had been caring for her since early 2008 and the medical adviser - all came to the conclusion that she lacked the cognitive capacity to deal independently with her complex financial affairs. They said that deficits persisted in short-term memory, arithmetic ability, frontal executive function, planning and impulse control.
The second psychiatrist, instructed by the woman's solicitors, met her twice and concluded she was not of "unsound mind", though she had problems consistent with her age.
DECISION
Mr Justice Hedigan said he preferred the evidence of the three doctors over that of the second psychiatrist called on the woman's behalf. The GP had been her doctor since 2003 and was better acquainted with her than the others, while the first psychiatrist, who had been caring for her since early 2008, had carried out more sophisticated examinations than had the second.
He said the test for determining what constitutes "a person of unsound mind" for the purposes of the 1871 Act had been very clearly set out in Francis Dolan -v- the Registrar of Wards of Court (2004). It had a very clear legal meaning and it must be construed in relation to the subject matter with which the statute was dealing.
This had been accepted by the Supreme Court, which had added that it did not have the perceived offensive meaning which was being attributed to it by the parents in the cited case.
In this case, it was clear the question was whether the respondent was, by reason of some mental incapacity, incapable of managing her affairs. She gave evidence and acquitted herself splendidly. She was bright and assertive and "is a lady who carries her years with great style and presence".
Nonetheless, it was clear from the medical evidence that the advance of age had deprived her of some of those mental capacities essential to the management of her complex affairs, accordingly the court found her to be a person of unsound mind under the statute and to be incapable of managing her person and property.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
...
Caroline Costelloe BL, instructed by Beauchamps Solrs, for the petitioner; Kenneth Ferguson BL, instructed by Judge & Co, for the respondent.