GUARDIANSHIP BOARD DECISIONS
YEAR 2026
| Date of Decisions | Case Summary | |
| 1. | Application (13/1/2026) |
Subject was a man aged 81 years who suffered from vascular dementia. His wife has been admitted to residential care services for her own health problems for a few years. The Subject suffered from a stroke in November 2024 and was admitted to a private residential home in January 2025, where he stayed until he was offered a placement under the Community Care Service Voucher Scheme for the Elderly in August 2025. His children were not suitable to act as they were either not in Hong Kong or busy with their own family and work. As such, the guardianship application was taken out by one of the Subject's younger sisters, who was a retired teacher in her 60s. After her suitability was assessed, the Board appointed her as the private guardian for the Subject. Another younger sister was also very caring to the Subject and had previously assisted the applicant to liaise with the residential home, and promised to assist the applicant after her appointment as guardian in together caring for the Subject. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 2. | Review (22/1/2026) |
Subject was a single woman aged 82 who suffered from Alzheimer's Disease with a large personal fortune. The application was first made in 2015 by a medical social worker of the hospital as no close relative or friend in Hong Kong could be located. It was only after guardianship was granted that the Subject's relatives could be found, yet the public guardian continued to act. A relative of the Subject made a Part II application to the High Court and became the Committee of the Estate of the Subject, then proposed to revoke the Order before the Committee account was opened. As the Board saw that certain health and welfare issues were unsettled and the Board was unable to interview the relative at the review hearing, the Board did not simply discharge the Order on the ground that a Committee was in place. It was only after 8 months when the guardian addressed the Board's concerns and the relative attended the rescheduled hearing that the Board allowed the Guardianship Order to be revoked. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 3. | Review (9/2/2026) |
Subject was a woman aged 73 who suffered from acquired brain injury from a traffic accident. The Subject had gambling problems in the past and was estranged her from the family. The family members were caring to the Subject after the traffic accident. The husband returned to Hong Kong from overseas and visited the Subject at the care home daily. One of the Subject's children based in Hong Kong was appointed as her private guardian under the first Order and renewed for 3 years based on her good performance. While the Subject was a pensioner, her income could be mobilized only with the Official Receiver's consent, which was given, as the Subject under a Bankruptcy Order. The exceptional arrangement proceeded smoothly. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 4. | Review (16/3/2026) |
Subject was a man aged 44 who suffered from a cerebral vascular accident. He was received into guardianship in September 2024 with his wife appointed as private guardian. The Subject received intense self-financed stroke rehabilitation programmes including physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy. When the case was reviewed in September 2025, there was some evidence to suggest the Subject has recovered from the mental disorder, but it was insufficient for the Board to make any determination. Hence, the Board adjourned the hearing for the parties to obtain more information and particulars about the medical assessment on the Subject. Upon considering further information and documents provided 4 months later, the Board was satisfied that the Subject was no longer a mentally incapacitated person which warrants his reception into guardianship and discharged the Guardianship Order immediately. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 5. | Review (19/3/2026) |
Subject was a woman aged 83 who suffered from Alzheimer's Disease. Her daughter applied for guardianship. Subject used to stay in her solely-owned private flat alone. She was a widow with 3 adult children all based in Hong Kong, 2 daughters visited her weekly, while her son has not visited for several years. There was a family instant messaging group in which the son joined but never responded. The Subject has several million dollars in bank savings while being admitted to subsidized placement. She was also receiving Normal Disability Allowance with the public guardian acting as appointee. While the Subject owned a landed property which has been left vacant since her hospitalization, no Part II application was considered necessary because there was sufficient savings to be mobilized to pay for her daily care expenses. The public guardian was appointed as her guardian her children declined to act for various reasons, and acted as the appointee for welfare money at the same time. In light of the Subject's wealth, the Board recommended the public guardian and relatives to consider engaging extra self-paid rehabilitation services for the Subject. The Guardianship Order was renewed for 3 years with the Director of Social Welfare continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 6. | Application (24/4/2026) |
Subject was a woman aged 79 who suffered from mixed type dementia. She was a widow with a son, with whom she had a distant relationship, meeting only a few times a year. The Subject had been living in a private old aged home since February 2023, until she was admitted to hospital in April 2025 for chest pain and underwent heart blood vessel surgery. In early August 2025, the Subject was assessed to be fit for discharge and she wished to be discharged herself. However, the son did not secure any elderly home placement for the Subject for around 3 months claiming he feared that her conditions would deteriorate after being discharged, and the medical social worker applied for guardianship in October. During the social enquiry stage, the son was explained that a lengthy hospitalization would not be beneficial to the Subject and he finally did not object for the public guardian to be appointed to assist him with his mother's discharge plan. The Board appointed the Director of Social Welfare as the guardian in order to arrange the Subject's smooth discharge from the hospital to a suitable accommodation. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 7. | Review (29/4/2026) |
Subject was a single woman aged 97 who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. She has been received into guardianship since 2009 when she was a victim of suspected financial abuse that her assets were being exploited. The Official Solicitor was appointed as committee of the estate of the Subject since 2011 to handle her financial matters. Over the years, all the suspected financial abusers had passed away while the Subject maintained a stable care arrangement. Nonetheless, as the Committee's power was restricted to financial matters only, it was desirable for the Subject to continue to be received into guardianship to look after the welfare issues to ensure a comprehensive management of the Subject, and the Board took into account the views of the Official Solicitor in this respect. The Guardianship Order was renewed for 3 years with the Director of Social Welfare continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 8. | Application (5/5/2026) |
Subject was a women aged 48 who suffered from a rare fatal degenerative brain disorder hitherto unknown to her. She was married with a daughter studying in secondary school, and has been working in the insurance field. Her mental condition deteriorated since end of 2024 and suddenly lost consciousness in January 2025. She was diagnosed with the disorder and was hospitalized since then. The application was taken out by her husband to mobilize the Subject's savings. The husband was very caring for the Subject and visited her every day. Guardianship order was granted for one year with the husband as private guardian. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 9. | Application (8/5/2026) |
Subject was a man aged 55 who suffered from mental handicap. His mother, who is in her 80s was his main carer and made the guardianship application intending to obtain medical reports for the Subject and to handle a property to be inherited from his late father in China. During the social enquiry stage, the mother was able to obtain medical reports on behalf of the Subject by other means and she was also explained that handling property in China is not a power the Board can be conferred to a guardian. Upon consideration, the applicant wished to withdraw her application, and this was accepted by the Board after a hearing. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
| 10. | Review (17/6/2026) |
Subject was a woman aged 75 who suffered from an acquired brain damage from a traffic accident. She was first received into guardianship in 2022 with her daughter as private guardian to mobilize her savings. Subsequently, the Subject was offered a subvented care & attention home placement in June 2023 and adjusted well to it. Over the years, her personal savings were exhausted and a settlement has been reached on her claim for compensation from the traffic accident. On the private guardian's testimony at the hearing based on independent legal advice she received to the effect that a guardianship order was not required to receive the Subject's compensation under the settlement, and there being no other guardianship needs, the Board agreed to revoke the Guardianship Order with immediate effect. (Uploaded on 7/9/2026) |
