Nageena Khalique appeared in the Court of Appeal before Laws LJ, Richards LJ and Gloster LJ, instructed by the Official Solicitor as litigation in friend representing the protected party who lacked capacity to make a decision about whether to undergo an amputation.

Re X (amputation) (2014) MHLO 89 (CA)

The appellant challenged the decision of Mrs Justice King in the Court of Protection where she had decided that X lacked capacity to consent to a below-knee amputation to treat her foot infection, and that this treatment was in her best interests. The Court of Appeal refused her son permission to appeal. (1) The judge’s decision on capacity was correct. (2) The judge was also correct on best interests: there was no need for further tests to determine best interests; the medical experts had no difficulty reaching their conclusions and there was no disagreement; the alternatives were unsuitable (for example, antibiotics would cease to be effective); the son was worried about death in theatre, but in fact surgery gave X the best chance of survival; her condition was deteriorating and the infection would spread without amputation. Permission to appeal was refused.


Please click here to view Nageena Khalique‘s profile.

Please click here to read the article reported by the Birmingham Mail and Lawtel.