header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 November 2013
Issue: 7583 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental health—Persons who lack capacity—Withholding of treatment

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67

Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger P, Lady Hale DP, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes SCJJ, 30 October 2013

The Supreme Court has reviewed the principles under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for determining whether a patient lacks capacity to consent to or refuse treatment of any kind and whether it would be in his best interests for specified treatments to be withheld in the event of a clinical deterioration. 

Ian Wise QC, Stephen Broach and Sam Jacobs (instructed by Jackson and Canter) for DJ. Lord Pannick QC and Vikram Sachdeva (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Trust. Alex Ruck Keene and Victoria Butler-Cole (instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP) for the interveners.

The proceedings concerned a patient, DJ. He was admitted to hospital in May 2012, aged around 68. He suffered very severe conditions including a stroke, with severe neurological damage, and he was completely dependent on artificial ventilation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll