GUIDES
Complexity, high value or disagreement may justify more detailed capacity evidence, but they do not create a different statutory test. The work should remain proportionate to the actual decision, the person’s support needs and the evidence required.
Author: Nellie Supports Ltd
Publication Date: 15/05/2026
39 Essex Chambers, Mental Capacity Guidance Note: Carrying out and recording capacity assessments.
Copyright © 2026 Nellie Supports Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is made available for general information, education and professional reference. It may be downloaded, printed and shared for non-commercial purposes, provided that it is reproduced in full, is not altered in any way, and is properly cited as the work of Nellie Supports Ltd. This material must not be edited, adapted, sold, republished, incorporated into commercial products, or used for commercial training, assessment, report-writing or advisory services without prior written permission from Nellie Supports Ltd.
This article does not constitute legal advice, clinical advice or a substitute for a decision-specific professional assessment. Where legislation, government guidance, court forms or external professional materials are referred to, those materials remain subject to their own copyright, licensing and re-use terms.
Complexity, high value or disagreement may justify more detailed capacity evidence, but they do not create a different statutory test. The work should remain proportionate to the actual decision, the person’s support needs and the evidence required. This guide covers the relevant evidence, support, process and limits in England and Wales.
Complexity, high value or disagreement may justify more detailed capacity evidence, but they do not create a different statutory test. The work should remain proportionate to the actual decision, the person’s support needs and the evidence required. A fuller records review, additional meetings or specialist advice may help where they answer an identified evidential need. The report should examine contrary material and explain uncertainty.
Complex assets, a consequential transaction and disagreement may occur together. Identify which feature affects the assessment: technical information may need explanation, fatigue may require shorter meetings and disputed accounts may need independent checking. Do not infer incapacity from the value or conflict.
The statutory test does not change for complex decisions; the relevant information does. A person deciding a simple matter needs to weigh little, whilst a person restructuring a company must broadly grasp what is owned, what the restructure does, who gains and loses and what alternatives exist. The assessor's first task is therefore mastering the decision, because relevant information that the assessor has not understood cannot be identified, presented or tested, and complexity unexamined becomes complexity assumed.
Understand the significance of the decision within the person’s circumstances, including foreseeable effects on their own needs. Re Beaney addresses the degree of understanding for gifts; it should not be applied as a universal sliding statutory test for every high-value decision.
Attribute information to its source and seek relevant records directly where practicable. Consider accounts that support and challenge the proposed conclusion. Give the person privacy and necessary support; repeated visits should be justified by the question and their needs.
Present the actual decision in manageable parts, using accessible summaries or visual material where helpful. Support should make the significant information usable without adding unnecessary detail. Short retention is sufficient if it enables the person to make the decision.
High-value decisions usually come wrapped in professional advice, from accountants, financial advisers and solicitors, and the person's ability to use that advice is part of the assessment. As in litigation capacity, the person need not replicate the expertise; they must be able to engage with advice as advice, grasp its thrust and weigh it within their own priorities. A person who can do that is equipped for a complex decision even where the technical detail sits with their advisers, and the report should assess exactly that interface.
Where earlier opinions differ, examine whether they concern the same decision, time, information and support. Explain material differences in evidence or reasoning and acknowledge uncertainty. More pages, more records or more meetings do not automatically make one opinion better.
Define the question, relevant time and documents, disclose competing accounts and agree the extra work required. Identify the applicable court rules where evidence may be used in proceedings; CPR Part 35 is not the procedural code for every jurisdiction.
Scale the evidence and support to the real decision without changing the legal test or assuming that high value proves incapacity. A useful report shows its reasoning and limits so that the appropriate decision-maker can evaluate it.
No. A diagnosis does not establish lack of capacity. For a decision under the Mental Capacity Act, consider the relevant information and practicable support, then assess understanding, retention, use or weighing and communication by any means. Any inability must be caused by an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. Will-making has its own legal test.
Provide the records, transaction documents, relevant advice, earlier assessments and competing accounts that bear on the defined question. Agree relevance and secure access rather than collect every available record by default.
Additional assessment work may be appropriate where the relevant information, support needs or disputed evidence requires it. Agree the reasons, scope, number of meetings and cost rather than choosing a service solely because the transaction is valuable.
The related guides below provide further explanation of the decisions, evidence and legal processes discussed here.
Provide the actual decision documents, the person’s circumstances and competing accounts. Ask which extra work is justified and why; value or disagreement alone does not establish that a particular service tier is necessary.
A GOOD PLACE TO START
Tell us what is happening and what you need help with. We will listen, explain the options and help you find the right starting point.