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
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll