Claims involving a mentally incapacitated claimant

Who lacks mental capacity?

Section 2(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) sets out a specific test for deciding whether a person lacks mental capacity:

'a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.'

When considering this test, MCA 2005, s 1 sets out five key principles which should be followed:

  1. a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity

  2. a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help them to do so have been taken without success

  3. a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because they make an unwise decision

  4. an act done, or decision made, under MCA 2005 for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in their best

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The Law Society’s AI strategy and response to government

The Law Society has responded to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology’s call for evidence on the AI Growth Lab, stressing the need for a proportionate regulatory approach that supports innovation while maintaining professional standards. In a press release dated 6 January 2026, the sector’s widespread willingness to embrace lawtech was highlighted, with two-thirds of lawyers said to ‘already use AI tools in their work’, alongside an ongoing uncertainty as to the risks and ‘exact requirements for data security, oversight and liability’. Separately, The Law Society’s ‘Introduction to lawtech’ guide published on 29 December 2025 observed that client demand for ‘greater efficiency, transparency and cost control, especially in corporate legal services’ has been a key driver for AI usage, with larger firms leading adoption and medium-sized firms catching up. The Law Society says it will continue to work with the government to ensure AI benefits both firms and clients, with its strategy focused on the following three key outcomes: i) innovation in legal service delivery; ii) an effective AI regulatory landscape, influenced by the legal sector; and iii) integrity through responsible AI use, supporting the rule of law and access to justice. Links to consultation responses and downloadable submissions on a range of AI-related issues, including data processing, ransomware resilience and the use of AI outputs in criminal proceedings (among others), are included on The Law Society’s ‘AI and lawtech: government policy and regulation’ page (updated on 18 December 2025), which also invites members to share their views and identify any gaps in support or guidance.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents