header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Mental health—Persons who lack capacity—Withholding of treatment

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
08 November 2013
Issue: 7583 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

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
Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Cyber drills build real-world resilience
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Fairness from day one
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
NLJ this week: When procedure is power
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
NLJ this week: Jury still trusted—Crown Court study revisited
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
NLJ this week: AI copyright clash
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll