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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll