Report Writing: Getting it Right When it Really Counts

When capacity is questioned, a report stops being “just a document.” It becomes part of the evidence that courts and legal representatives rely on.
Good capacity reports are anchored in the correct legal test, they stick tightly to the specific decision in question, and they show the assessor’s reasoning.

When writing expert reports, we aim to make complex information easy to follow, ensuring that we evidence the support given to maximise the person’s ability to decide. When you do that well, your reader—whether a judge, a solicitor, or a family member—can see exactly how you reached your conclusion and why it’s safe to rely on it. 

Our founder, Jodie Brookes, has been producing court compliant reports for over 13 years.

A short scene-setting paragraph is enough. Say which legal framework you’re using and why: the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) for most health, welfare and financial decisions, or the Banks v Goodfellow test when you’re dealing with testamentary capacity.

Capacity is decision and time specific. It sounds obvious, but it’s surprising how quickly reports drift into global statements—“Mr A lacks capacity”—that don’t help the court answer the real question. Keep coming back to the decision at hand: managing day-to-day finances, consenting to a particular operation, making a will on 17 October 2025. Treat everything else as context, not the headline.

Help the reader walk through what happened. Set out, briefly, why you were
instructed and any supporting evidence you reviewed. Then show how you
maximised and supported capacity—plain language explanations, visual prompts, hearing aids checked, a calm environment, breaks as needed, an interpreter if appropriate. These details matter they demonstrate respect for the person and they satisfy the statutory expectation to support decision making before concluding someone lacks capacity.

When you describe your meeting, keep your tone neutral and your observations factual. Use direct quotes if they illuminate understanding or reasoning and make sure they’re truly verbatim. Avoid speculation or pejorative language.

This is where strong reports stand out. Take the legal test and map your findings to it. Under the MCA, that usually means explaining how the person did—or didn’t—understand, retain, use, or weigh relevant information, and communicate a decision at the material time. For wills, link your evidence to Banks v Goodfellow—understanding the nature and effect of a will, the extent of assets, and the claims of those who might expect to benefit, with no mental disorder distorting judgment.

You don’t need pages of repetition. A crisp paragraph for each element, tied to concrete observations, is usually sufficient.

After all that careful groundwork, your conclusion should feel inevitable. Answer the instruction plainly: does the person have capacity for this decision, today? If capacity is borderline or fluctuates, say so and suggest how it could be improved—timing the discussion differently, using memory aids, treating an acute condition, or revisiting after a medication change. Practical, proportionate recommendations add real value.

Most challenges come from a handful of avoidable errors: using the wrong legal test (for instance, relying solely on MCA language in a testamentary capacity case), failing to record the support offered, drifting into generalisations, or padding the report with background that never connects back to the decision. Another frequent issue is tone: advocacy masquerading as analysis. Courts look for fairness and restraint; a measured voice builds trust.

Imagine you’re asked to assess Mrs B’s capacity to make a new will. You open by noting that testamentary capacity is assessed against Banks v Goodfellow, not the MCA alone. You explain that you met her in a quiet room, used large-print notes to outline what a will does, and gave unhurried time for questions. You record, without embellishment, how she described her estate (“the house and some savings”), identified those who might expect to benefit (two children, an estranged sibling), and explained why she wanted to leave a small legacy to a carer who had supported her. 

You then analyse those observations against Banks v Goodfellow, concluding that she does have capacity for this will today. Clear. Defensible. Useful.

Training keeps practitioners up to date with latest legal changes, apply the right test automatically, and write excellent quality reports. The result? Fewer delays, fewer disputes, and decisions that stand up when it really counts.

A high-quality capacity report reads smoothly, sticks to the point, and shows its workings against the correct legal test. It protects the person’s rights and gives decision makers the confidence to act. 

Brookes Care Solutions Ltd is based near Stratford Upon Avon and services clients within a 2 hour radius. We are trusted by large reputable solicitors firms and pride ourselves on providing excellent customer service.

To talk to us about becoming your preferred supplier of mental capacity assessments for wills (testamentary capacity assessment), Lasting power of Attorneys, and COP3 documentation, get in touch today.