A NHS Trust v Dr. A

A NHS Trust v Dr. A

Dr. A lacks capacity to make decisions about nutrition and hydration due to a delusional disorder. Forcible administration of artificial nutrition and hydration is in his best interests. The Mental Health Act does not provide a sufficient legal basis for this deprivation of liberty in these circumstances. The Mental...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: A NHS Trust; Respondent: Dr. A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Mental Capacity / Medical Treatment Application / Final Judgment With Postscript
Outcome
Application granted under inherent jurisdiction; declarations and orders made as sought.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Best Interests, Inherent Jurisdiction, Article 2 ECHR, Forcible Medical Treatment
Mental Capacity Law Medical Law Human Rights Law Deprivation of Liberty Best Interests Inherent Jurisdiction Article 2 ECHR Forcible Medical Treatment

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 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A NHS Trust

Applicant

Dr. A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Mental Capacity / Medical Treatment Application / Final Judgment With Postscript

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. A lacks capacity to make decisions about nutrition and hydration
  2. 2 Whether forcible feeding is in Dr. A's best interests
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to authorise deprivation of liberty for forcible feeding

Ratio Decidendi

Dr. A lacks capacity to make decisions about nutrition and hydration due to a delusional disorder. Forcible administration of artificial nutrition and hydration is in his best interests. The Mental Health Act does not provide a sufficient legal basis for this deprivation of liberty in these circumstances. The Mental Capacity Act, by virtue of section 16A and Schedule 1A, does not permit the Court of Protection to authorise deprivation of liberty for this purpose. However, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction survives and can be used to authorise the treatment and associated deprivation of liberty, provided Article 5 ECHR safeguards are observed.

Court Disposition

Application granted under inherent jurisdiction; declarations and orders made as sought.

Orders

  • Declaration that Dr. A lacks capacity to litigate and to make decisions about nutrition and hydration.
  • Order that it is lawful for the Trust to provide artificial nutrition and hydration to Dr. A, using reasonable force and restraint if necessary, even if this amounts to deprivation of liberty.