Bridget Dolan KC

experience & expertise

Recognised as a leading practitioner in the Court of Protection, Bridget has been described as “ahead of the game on all matters involving the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act.” She is regularly instructed in heavyweight cases involving substantial and complex life and death medical treatment decisions in respect of adults who lack capacity, as well as medical decision making for children in the High Court Family Division.

Bridget excels in cases at the interface of the Mental Capacity Act and mental health legislation. Her wider experience as a forensic psychologist and as a Mental Health Tribunal judge is often put to good use when she advises public bodies on general operational policy relating to the Mental Capacity Act, the Mental Health Act and DOLS. Bridget is frequently instructed as counsel to the Official Solicitor, not only when he has been appointed as a litigation friend to the incapable person but also representing the Official Solicitor as a party in their own right in significant ‘test’ cases.

Bridget also acts in cases involving the property and affairs of incapable people particularly where significant disputes about capacity arise or in cases involving statutory wills. Most recently she was instructed for a P&A Deputy in a series of cases considering challenges to a ‘Peters Order’ following very high value personal injury settlements.

Cases & work of note

Bridget’s Court of Protection practice covers all aspects of health and welfare work. She is often instructed in the most serious and complex of cases involving the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment from those who lack capacity. Recent notable cases include:

• Mrs R v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2400 (Fam), a rare case in which the Court discharged declarations relating to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a severely disabled child, which had been granted on the basis that it was in his best interests due to his expected imminent death. Contrary to those expectations the child remained alive and was living at home four months later;
• BBC v Cardiff Council [2024] EWCOP 50, concerning a transparency order imposing reporting restrictions on the identity of an individual involved in ongoing Court of Protection proceedings in order to facilitate his participation in a proposed documentary;
• North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust v KAG [2024] EWCOP 38 (T3), concerning whether it was lawful to provide a woman who had developed severe depression and was not eating or drinking with clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. This is an important case concerning the scope of section 63 Mental Health Act 1983;
• GUP v EUP [2024] EWCOP 3, concerning whether it was in the best interests for an elderly woman who had suffered several strokes to move to palliative care;
• Re LDP [2024], an emergency application that it would be lawful to administer blood to a 13-year-old Jehovah’s Witness without her parents’ consent if required to save her life;
• Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals v Jordan Tooke [2023] EWCOP 45, concerning whether it was in the best interests of a party with autism and learning difficulties, who had entered end-stage renal failure and who had a phobia of needles, for him to undertake haemodialysis treatment whilst under sedation;
• Re N [2023], an application by an NHS Trust seeking authority to perform neurosurgery on an unaccompanied child asylum seeker;
• Re H [2023], an application by an NHS Trust seeking authority to treat an adult male Algerian asylum seeker who was starving himself to death for unknown reasons and had possible symptoms of a life-threatening DVT, but who was not communicating with those seeking to help him;
• Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v RD [2022] EWCOP 47, concerning a 23-year-old woman who had a personality disorder and a history of serious self-harm who wished to live when capacitous but, as soon she became distressed, lacked capacity and needed physical restraint to prevent her removing her tracheostomy tube in an attempt to end her life;
• Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v William Verden [2022] EWCOP 4, an application to set aside reporting restrictions to allow P’s mother to launch a media campaign and find him a suitable kidney donor;
• Re IA [2022], a welfare case concerning the return of an incapable man to a British Overseas Territory;
• Re AA [2022], an emergency declaration to provide a baby with urgent treatment needed to save his life;
• Re TL [2021], concerning whether a vulnerable young disabled man should receive the Covid-19 vaccine against his mother’s wishes;
• WU v BU and others [2021] EWCOP 54, concerning the balance of personal autonomy and best interests of an incapable woman who was subject to significant coercive control;
• Re TW [2021] EWCOP 13, considering whether it was in the best interests of a man who suffered catastrophic brain injury arising from a stroke to continue to receive life sustaining treatment;
• University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust v RS [2020] EWCOP 70, concerning a high-profile application to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a Polish citizen living in the UK who had suffered a significant brain injury and profound disorder of consciousness. His birth family opposed the application, and the Polish Government and Catholic Church sought to intervene;
• An NHS Foundation Trust v AF [2020] EWCOP 55, concerning the approach of the court when asked to make a best interests evaluation only a few months after another court has made a determination of best interests in respect of a similar decision;
• An NHS Foundation Trust v MC [2020] EWCOP 33, representing an incapable young woman in the first application to come before the Court of Protection seeking consent for peripheral blood stem cell donation to a relative by someone lacking capacity;
• GSTT and SLAM v R [2020] EWCOP 4, identifying the framework of the applicable law when an anticipatory declaration was sought relating to a capacitous woman who was likely to become incapacitous during the course of labour;

Bridget has also acted in some of the key cases at the inception of the MCA/DOLS regime such as TB and GJ (seminal cases considering the relationship between MHA and MCA DOLS); Re A [2016] 3 WLR 119 (on the proper construction of the DOLS eligibility schedule); and representing the Official Solicitor in the JM [2016] 4 WLR 64 series of test cases, regarding the need for r.3A representation in Re X type DOLS cases following the Cheshire West judgment.

Bridget has fought and defended a number of claims for a remedy under the Human Rights Act that have arisen within CoP proceedings. She acted for the successful litigant in the first case to achieve a declaration of breach of ECHR rights in the Court of Protection (Re MM [2011] 1 FLR 712) and has obtained significant financial damages on behalf of ‘P’ where public bodies’ failures breached Art 5 and Art 8 rights; such as the £27k paid to Mrs and Mr D following an Art 5 breach in A Local Authority v Mrs D & Mr D [2013] EWHC B34 (COP), the £10k she achieved on behalf of a man with Down’s syndrome who was required to cease sexual relations with his wife following the failure of the Local Authority to provide him with sex education (CH v A Metropolitan Council [2017] EWCOP 12) and, in 2019, a settlement of £35,000 for a client wrongly detained in a care home.

Unsurprisingly, Bridget’s advice on the management of apparent shortcomings is often sought by public bodies when concerned that they may be found liable for ECHR breaches.

seminars & Lectures

Following from Bridget’s previous career as a lecturer at St George’s Medical School she is sought after to provide teaching and training for judges, lawyers and other professionals. She has been commissioned to deliver training at all levels for High Court Judges, Senior Coroners and Mental Health Tribunal Judges through to undergraduate students. She is always happy to work with solicitors’ firms and public bodies to devise and present custom-made training.

PRO BONO AND DIRECT ACCESS WORK

Bridget accepts pro bono mental health, Court of Protection and Inquest cases, including providing representation for families at inquests, via the Bar Pro-Bono Unit and mental health charities. She is also Direct Access accredited and accepts direct access work in the Court of Protection and Coroners’ Courts.

recommendations

“Bridget is a go-to counsel for difficult and complex welfare matters. Her understanding of complex and developing areas of law is second to none, and she can assimilate vast quantities of material in a short period.”
The Legal 500 2025

“Bridget has superb ability, speed and interpretation of the law.”
Chambers and Partners 2025

“Bridget is excellent and very to the point.”
Chambers and Partners 2025

“Her technical knowledge is exceptional and her advocacy, both between parties and on her feet, is impressive.”
Chambers and Partners 2025

“Bridget knows the law and is able to manage sensitively emotional and delicate cases.”
Chambers & Partners 2024

‘Bridget is extremely experienced and authoritative.’
The Legal 500 2024

“Bridget has a tremendous presence in court.”
Chambers & Partners 2023

“She is absolutely formidable in terms of what she can achieve.”
Chambers & Partners 2023

“Bridget is on top of the issues straight away and handles matters with a huge level of sensitivity and care.”
Chambers & Partners 2023

“Bridget’s knowledge of the Court of Protection is second to none. Her written work is outstanding too, she knows the path through any case.”
Chambers & Partners 2023

“Bridget is simply brilliant. She identifies the central issue of the case very quickly and provides a reasoned and technical analysis of the problem, along with a range of possible solutions to work through with the client. Her knowledge of the relevant case law and legislation is encyclopaedic, and her advocacy is clear, elegant and highly persuasive.”
The Legal 500 2023

“Her level of service and quality of work are of a very high standard.” “She is brilliant with clients and able to manage them well, even when they are forthright with their views.”
Chambers & Partners 2022

“She has deep sector knowledge and is really easy to work with. She’s extremely good at assimilating immense quantities of information, knowing what the judge will be interested in and identifying how to present a case to a judge.”
Chambers & Partners 2021

“She is excellent in court and commands the judges’ attention.”
Chambers & Partners 2021

‘Is able to assimilate vast quantities of information very quickly and identify the nub of the problem quickly. She notes and discards irrelevancies, concentrating on the things that will matter to the judge.’
The Legal 500 2021

“Bridget is able to get to the crux of a matter swiftly and succinctly. Her expertise in complex matters in the Court of Protection, particularly with regards to sexual relations, is outstanding. She is accessible, responsive and provides clear and helpful advice.” “She is really down to earth, gets things really quickly and thinks outside the box.” “She’s fantastic on her feet – an excellent advocate.”
Chambers & Partners 2020

Publications

Bridget has written four books and over fifty academic articles. A selection of her publications include:

• Co-authoring chapter twelve: Pregnancy and Childbirthin the fourth edition of the book Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law, edited by Christopher Johnston KC and Sophia Roper KC and written by 27 members of Serjeants’ Inn.
• Medical Treatment Decisions and the Law(2016) Johnston C (Ed). Co-author of two chapters and editor of three others. Bloomsbury, London
• Co-authoring the chapter, Law and the Mentally Disordered Offender: an Overview of Structures and Statutes, in Bartlett and McGauley (eds) Forensic Mental Health Concepts Systems and Practice (OUP, 2009)
• Disclosing confidential clinical information(2004) Psychiatric Bulletin, 28, 53-56, Gaskell, London
• An introduction to the law relevant to Mentally Disordered Offenders(2004) Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, S12-18, Wiley, London.
• Review of Treatments for Severe Personality Disorder(2003) Home Office, London (co-author of report commissioned by the Home Office/Dept Health)
• The Mental Health Act 1983 explained(2001) Dolan B & Powell D, Stationery Office, London (Second Edition)