Re GHI (a protected person)

The case before the court involved an application by the plaintiff's mother to revoke an order that the plaintiff be subject to a management order in respect of his estate. The plaintiff was deemed to be a protected person under the Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff was capable of managing his own affairs, a determination that would inform whether the management order should be revoked. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the term "affairs" within the context of the legislation, and the extent to which the plaintiff's willingness to accept advice or his vulnerability to exploitation should factor into the assessment of his capacity to manage his own affairs.

The court identified several key issues to be resolved. Firstly, the meaning of the term "affairs" as it appeared in the relevant legislation, and whether this encompassed all aspects of the plaintiff's life or was limited to financial matters. Secondly, the court needed to determine the relevance of the plaintiff's willingness to accept advice in assessing his capacity to manage his affairs. Thirdly, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's vulnerability to exploitation should be taken into account when determining his capacity to manage his affairs. Additionally, the court had to determine the standard of proof required to revoke the management order, and what types of matters were appropriate to consider in making this decision.

The court found that the term "affairs" in the legislation was broad enough to include both financial and non-financial matters. The court emphasised that the capacity to manage one's affairs was a holistic concept, and that a person's willingness to accept advice could be relevant in determining their capacity. However, the court held that vulnerability to exploitation was not a determinative factor in assessing capacity, but rather a consideration that could inform the overall assessment. The court held that the onus of proof rested with the applicant to demonstrate that the plaintiff was capable of managing his own affairs, and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities. The court found that the applicant had not met this standard, and thus the management order should not be revoked.