Update to para 2.5, page 33
New footnote 6: White v Philips  EWHC 386 (Ch)
The legal test as to testamentary capacity is a common law one and the classic statement of the test, being found in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR5 QB 549, is almost 150 years old. Since judicial application of the test occurs in contested, adversarial proceedings, the evidential burden of proof and the manner in which it shifts are significant and were live issues in this case. All of these distinguishing factors combine to make this fascinating decision of HHJ Saffman of academic interest to those concerned with the application of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the MCA 2005 to medical treatment decisions in the Court of Protection.
Update on Thefaut v Johnson, para 1.26, page 18
In Spencer v Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust it was determined that the Montgomery approach to informed consent was simply a variant of Bolam and that the test was: would the ‘ordinary sensible patient’ feel justifiably aggrieved at not being provided with the information in issue. In Thefaut v Johnson Green J (correctly in the authors’ view) rejected that approach, indicating that it failed to give sufficient weight to the subjective – and patient-centric – approach required by the Supreme Court in Montgomery.
Update to para 5.12, page 132: Introduction to the Official Solicitor
para 5.26, page 147: Litigation Friend
para 5.58, page 170: The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to vulnerable adults
The Official Solicitor has issued a new and amplified Practice Direction – Appointment In Family Proceedings And Proceedings Under The Inherent Jurisdiction In Relation To Adults, January 2017
This replaces the Practice Direction issued in March 2013, set out at Appendix 5.7.
Update to main text para 13.1, page 376: Introduction
There have been significant developments in this area in recent months.
The most important is Briggs: a policeman and Gulf War veteran, injured in a traffic accident, remained in a minimally conscious state; his wife brought an application seeking withdrawal of clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration. Charles J’s first judgment held that Mrs Briggs was entitled to bring her application for withdrawal under s21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This conclusion may have far reaching consequences for both s21A applications and serious medical treatment cases where a standard authorisation is in place. The judgment is currently under appeal, and dealt with in an update on chapter 5. In the later substantive judgment, Charles J granted Mrs Briggs’ application, applying the best interest test to conclude that had Mr Briggs been able to decide the matter for himself, he would not have consented to receive continued treatment by clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration.
Update to para 6.1, page 174: General
R (ota Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London  EWCA Civ 31 addresses the tangled issue of what actually constitutes a deprivation of liberty. It is a further retreat by the judiciary from the far-reaching implications of Cheshire West.