Understanding the difference between Micro and Macro decisions

The case of A, B, C v X, Y, Z (2012) is arguably one of the most important pieces of caselaw that assessors need to know, and it is one that they should reference every time they undertake a mental capacity assessment.

The reason it is so important is because it identifies that there are two different types of decision that a person can make, Macro (or on-going) and Micro (or one-off) and it also helps define the length of the decision-making process.

What does it say?

In the ruling, Hedley J held that the management of property and affairs is a "continuous state of affairs" whose demands may be unpredictable and may occasionally be urgent, noting that “that there would be times when a snapshot of his condition would reveal an ability to manage his affairs, but the general concept of managing affairs is an ongoing act and, therefore, quite unlike the specific act of making a will or making an enduring power of attorney. The management of affairs relates to a continuous state of affairs whose demands may be unpredictable and may occasionally be urgent”.

What does this mean in practice?

In order to properly understand the evidence we need to gather during an assessment (and how to apply it) we need to determine whether the decision we are assessing for is a one-off (and therefore how the individual presents at the time of assessment provides an accurate reflection of their capacity), or whether the decision is a an on-going decision, whereby we cannot rely solely on how the individual presents at the time of assessment – rather needing to gather additional information relating to their ability to make the decision over a longer period of time.

Without understanding this, we cannot properly accumulate and apply evidence to determine whether someone has the capacity to make a decision or not.

It also helps with the rather thorny issue of, what is often referred to as, ‘fluctuating capacity’. If the decision in question is a one-off decision, then they either have capacity at the time of assessment, or they don’t

If the decision in question is an on-going decision then we make a decision, based on the balance of probabilities, as to whether over the longer period of time the person would more often than not, be able to make those sudden and unforeseen interventions. If they can’t, they lack capacity.

Conclusion

Having a good understanding of caselaw is vital when it comes to mental capacity and each particular decision will have its own specific pieces of caselaw to help us clarify whether a person has capacity or not.

However, the ruling of A,B,C v X,Y, Z is one of those that applies to all decisions and is one that practitioners should make sure they understand and apply to all assessments.