1. ) SURESH A/L DORASAMY 2. ) KAYTRE A/P DORASAMY v 1. ) Dorasamy A/l Nalaya 2. ) Partiban A/l Dorasamy 3. ) Sarawathy A/p Karuppan

Case Significance

Illustrates the protective, best-interests approach under the Mental Health Act 2001, the court replacing a spent 2016 order made under the Mental Disorders Ordinance 1952 and appointing multiple family members jointly as Committee and Trustees to manage the affairs of a person unable to manage himself.

This High Court decision concerns an application under the Mental Health Act 2001 relating to the affairs of an elderly man who, following an accident in about July 2015, suffered a serious mental disorder that left him unable to manage himself or his property. His children, as applicants, sought a declaration that a 2016 order made under the older Mental Disorders Ordinance 1952 was spent and no longer enforceable, and asked to be appointed as the Committee and Trustees to manage his affairs under the current statutory framework. During the proceedings a further issue arose: whether another son, the second respondent, should also be included in the committee, even though the applicants had not initially agreed to his inclusion. The court identified the real question as not merely the validity of the earlier order but the exercise of its powers under the Mental Health Act 2001 to secure the best protection for a person suffering from mental disorder. Treating the best interests of that person as the paramount consideration, the court reasoned that a committee comprising more than one family member would promote transparency and balance in managing his affairs, and that it was therefore appropriate for the second respondent to be appointed alongside the applicants. The court allowed the application with suitable modification. It set aside the 2016 order made under the Mental Disorders Ordinance 1952, declared the first respondent a person suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2001 and unable to manage himself or his property, and appointed the two applicants together with the second respondent as the Committee and Trustees, directing that they act jointly, with the costs of the application to be borne by the estate. The judgment illustrates the protective, best-interests approach the court takes under the Mental Health Act 2001.