North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust & Anor v KAG & Ors [2024] EWCOP 38

Judgment concerning medical treatment where there is uncertainty as to the application of the MHA 1983.

KAG is a woman with a history of depression. Following an operation she stopped eating and drinking. The LA and the medical professional involved initially objected to treatment under the MHA but following a skeleton argument from the OS, which said the proposed insertion of a PEG for feeding fell under the Act and was in KAG's best interests, they withdrew their applications. However, the trust urged the judge to make a declaration because they were anxious to avoid further confusion about the applicable legal framework. 

Victoria Butler-Cole, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, makes the declaration under the inherent jurisdiction but states at [19] the application was not required and her judgment 

'should not be taken as any sort of encouragement to statutory bodies to seek the court’s intervention where there is no uncertainty on the part of a treating Trust as to whether treatment can be provided under s.63 and s.145 MHA, even in the face of objection by a patient.'

It was also unquestionable that it was in KAG's best interest to receive feeding via a PEG rather than a nasogastric tube as it will be 'less risky, more comfortable and more effective.' 

Read the judgment on the National Archive