A London NHS Trust v DT & Ors (Brain Stem Testing)

DT’s best interests require transfer to Country W for brain stem testing and withdrawal of treatment, given her strong connection, wishes, beliefs, and values, and the risks and futility of ongoing treatment are outweighed by these factors.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Applicant: A London NHS Trust; First Respondent: DT; Second Respondent: YT
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 21 October 2025
Procedural Posture: COP1 Application (court of Protection) / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application granted; DT to be transferred to Country W for brain stem testing and withdrawal of treatment.
Legal Topics: Best Interests, Brain Stem Death, Medical Treatment, Capacity, Repatriation, Withdrawal of Treatment

Mental Capacity Medical Law Family Law Best Interests Brain Stem Death Medical Treatment Capacity Repatriation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

A London NHS Trust

Applicant

First Respondent

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

COP1 Application (court of Protection) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether it is in DT’s best interests to be transferred to Country W for brain stem testing and withdrawal of treatment, or for the tests to be undertaken in the UK

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted; DT to be transferred to Country W for brain stem testing and withdrawal of treatment.

Orders

DT is to be transferred to Country W for brain stem testing to be undertaken there.
The Trust is to facilitate specialist medical transfer arrangements.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.