Appeal was brought without lawful authority where client had entered wardship

Wardship – entitlement in law of legal practitioners, including a firm of solicitors, to maintain and prosecute the within appeal, notwithstanding that the individual who originally retained the solicitors subsequently was admitted into Wardship – vascular dementia – application for wardship – retention of solicitors - opposing his proposed Wardship – obligations on solicitors in relation to costs - President of the High Court, in light of the evidence before him, declared him to be a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his person and property – costs motion – argued that the HSE should bear the costs of the application - Judgment of the High Court - order as to costs - Effect of Orders of High Court – brought the inquisitorial Wardship process to an end and with it the retainer of the legal practitioners – whether the Ward was “a client” of the solicitor from and after the order - Ward may not enter a binding contract or institute or defend legal proceedings - the legal practitioners never had contact of any kind with the ward from the date on which the order admitting him to Wardship was made – notice of appeal - solicitors/legal practitioners were never the subject of any purported retainer by the Ward to act in respect of any matter subsequent to him being taken into Wardship – nor could he have affected such a retainer in law - solicitor made no contact with the Committee of the Ward - failed to comply with any aspect or requirement mandated pursuant to s.150, including in connection with retaining counsel, prior to filing the Notice of Appeal – whether the General Solicitor, as Committee of the Ward was “a client” of the solicitor from and after the costs order - solicitor never engaged with the Committee in whom the person and property of the Ward had vested – consent - no consent to the bringing of the appeal since there was no evidence that the Committee was ever made aware that the Notice of Appeal was to be filed – alleged acquiescence - burden of establishing acquiescence rests upon the party who seeks to assert it and it must be in clear and unambiguous terms - Section 150 Notice - No Application made to President of High Court - whether the Legal Personal Representative of the Ward “a client” of the solicitor – no instructions - difficult to understand how the legal practitioners in question continued to assert an entitlement to pursue propositions and arguments pertaining to “... the voice of the proposed Ward be heard in the Wardship process...” - executrix never assented to the appeal proceeding – fees incurred – locus standi – litigation cannot be conducted in the absence of a client - ought to have been obvious that either the prior consent of the Committee of the Person and the Property of the Ward, the General Solicitor, or the prior authorisation by the President of the High Court was required by way of instruction and authorisation to proceed had to be obtained before any Notice of Appeal against the Orders made in the High Court could be filed - legal practitioners had no client and no instructions of any kind when a Notice of Appeal was filed in the name of the ward - use of the name and identity of the Ward, without lawful prior consent of his Committee or leave of the President of the High Court to pursue this appeal, was inappropriate and regrettable - appeal falls to be struck out as having been improperly brought without instruction or lawful authority –