British Patients Harmed After Treatment in Türkiye: Teeth, Hair and Surgery Claims Under Turkish Law

When something goes wrong after the flight home, the follow-up care happens in the UK while the clinic, the doctors and the records stay in Türkiye. This guide explains, under Turkish law, how to obtain the Turkish file, who can be held liable, how a claim reaches a Turkish court and which time limits to plan around.

A woman from Liverpool has a full set of veneers fitted in Antalya. Eighteen months later two have come away, and a dentist at home advises replacing the whole set. A man from Glasgow has a hair transplant in Istanbul; back in Scotland, the donor area at the back of his head becomes infected and his GP has to treat it. A patient from Cardiff has a gastric sleeve in Izmir and, a few days after landing, is readmitted to hospital in Wales. None of the three is a real client; the cases are invented to show how the rules apply.

Each of them is now being treated in the United Kingdom, on the NHS or privately, while the clinic, the doctors and the records are in Türkiye. This guide explains how such a claim is handled under Turkish law and before Turkish courts. No single Turkish statute governs claims against clinics and doctors. The rules come from five places: the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK, Law No. 6098); the Consumer Protection Law (TKHK, Law No. 6502); the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK, Law No. 6100); the Ministry of Health’s regulations on patient rights, health tourism and hair transplant units; and, since the patient lives in the UK, MÖHUK, the Turkish statute on private international law and international civil procedure (Law No. 5718). A claim in a UK court raises separate questions of the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, which belong to a solicitor qualified in that part of the UK.

It belongs to a set of guides written for readers in the UK who have business before Turkish courts or authorities. Background on particular procedures is in the site’s guides on dental malpractice, hair transplant complications and cosmetic surgery malpractice.

Three UK patients, three different legal questions

The three cases look alike: treatment abroad, a problem at home. Legally they part ways early, because Turkish law attaches different rules to different kinds of treatment.

For the Liverpool patient, the first question is what was promised. Veneers and crowns are made to order and fitted. Where a finished result was promised, the question can arise whether the rules on the contract for work (eser sözleşmesi, TBK Article 470) apply rather than the rules on mandate (vekâlet, Article 502). The answer changes the time limit and the steps the patient was expected to take after the work was delivered.

The Glasgow case brings in a regulation written only for hair transplant units. The Regulation on Hair Transplant Units requires sterile surgical instruments and sets, and disinfection and sterilisation at every stage of the procedure (Article 10(1) and (2)(b)). It also fixes who may perform each stage, a rule amended on 12 September 2025 (Article 9(3)). An infection does not prove a breach by itself. Whether these rules were followed is a matter for expert evidence, and the clinic’s own records are where that inquiry begins.

For the Cardiff patient, the questions concern information and aftercare. A patient whose inpatient treatment is completed is told orally about the post-discharge treatment plan, and is then given a copy of the discharge summary (epikriz) containing it (Patient Rights Regulation, Article 24). Whether the risk that led to the readmission was explained before surgery falls under the information rules in Articles 15 and 18 of the same Regulation.

Treatment in the UK comes first, but have the findings recorded

Your health decides when corrective treatment happens. The legal point is narrower. Once a veneer is replaced, an infected area has healed or a revision operation is done, the original condition can no longer be examined. Before that point, ask the UK dentist, GP, consultant or private clinic to write down what they find, with measurements, photographs from standard angles and imaging where it is relevant. Keep your own dated photographs from the first days after the Turkish treatment, and ask the UK hospital, GP practice or private provider for copies of the notes and letters.

All of this can go before a Turkish judge. HMK Article 199 counts as a document anything capable of proving the disputed facts, whether text in writing or print, a drawing, a photograph, film, an image or sound recording, or data held electronically. WhatsApp messages with the clinic’s patient coordinator, emails from the agency, the clinic’s own before-and-after pictures and card or bank transfer records in pounds sterling all fall within that definition.

Evidence that sits in Türkiye can also be secured there before a lawsuit. A party may ask a Turkish court for an inspection, an examination by a court-appointed expert or the hearing of witnesses to establish a fact it will rely on in a later case (HMK Article 400(1)). A legal interest is required, and it is presumed where the evidence risks being lost, or becoming much harder to present, if it is not established at once (Article 400(2)). If no case has been filed yet, the application is made either to the court that will hear the merits or to the civil court of peace for the place where the item to be inspected is, or where the witness lives (Article 401(1)). For an injury about to be treated in Liverpool or Glasgow, the practical safeguard remains the UK record described above.

Asking the Turkish clinic for your file from the UK

Every health institution in Türkiye, state or private, is bound by the Patient Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği, Article 2). Under Article 16, the patient may examine the file and records containing information about his or her health, directly or through an attorney or a legal representative, and obtain a copy. If an entry is missing, vague or wrong, Article 17 lets the patient ask for it to be completed, explained or corrected, and to challenge reports on his or her health.

A second regulation applies to many patients travelling from the UK. The Regulation on International Health Tourism and Tourist Health, published in the Official Gazette on 26 April 2025 and in force from that date, covers people who come to Türkiye from abroad to receive health services and the facilities and intermediaries serving them, subject to the exclusions in its Article 2. Facilities set up an international health tourism unit for admission, registration, diagnosis, treatment, billing, discharge, interpreting and coordination with intermediaries, and at least one person working there must have documented foreign-language skills (Article 7(1) and (2)). Every international patient is assigned a member of that unit as responsible staff, and the assignment is entered on the Ministry’s portal (Article 7(4)). Address the request from the UK to that person.

Under Article 12(1), the facility must issue a receipt or an invoice, together with a document showing a detailed breakdown of the health services provided and their unit prices. On request, and at no charge, it must also provide the list showing the type and quantity of medicines and consumables used and billed to the patient, the laboratory results and radiological images the patient paid for (originals are not handed over in forensic cases), and prescriptions for medicines and materials bought outside (Article 12(1)(a)). An intermediary must provide a detailed breakdown of the fees charged for accommodation, transport, transfer, interpreting, consultancy and similar services (Article 12(1)(b)).

A note for Turkish citizens and dual nationals living in the UK. The Regulation’s definition of international health tourism expressly includes Turkish citizens residing abroad (Article 4(1)(ı)). Article 2(2)(f), however, places outside its scope persons covered by Articles 28 and 44 of the Turkish Citizenship Law (Law No. 5901): those born Turkish who later left Turkish citizenship with permission, and their descendants to the third degree (Article 28), and those who took another nationality and had it entered in the Turkish civil register (Article 44). Under Article 2(3), they may still receive international health tourism services under the Regulation if they voluntarily undertake to pay. The Patient Rights Regulation applies without that distinction.

The Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK, Law No. 6698) offers a second, independent route. Article 11(1) lets anyone ask a data controller whether personal data about them have been processed, request information about that processing, and learn the third parties in Türkiye or abroad to whom the data were transferred. That last point matters where scans and photographs went to a UK agency. The controller must conclude the request as soon as possible and within thirty days at the latest, without charge; if the operation involves an additional cost, the fee in the Board’s tariff may be charged (Article 13(2)).

Send the request in writing, by email and by a route that leaves a trace, list every item, and keep the reply. Keep a record of any refusal or silence as well.

What the clinic had to explain, and what you signed

Consent is sometimes dealt with quickly: a form on arrival at the hotel, a short talk with a coordinator, a signature on the morning of the procedure. The Patient Rights Regulation asks for considerably more.

The starting point is Article 24: the patient’s consent is required for a medical intervention. Under Article 15, the patient is informed, among other things, of who will perform the intervention, where, in what way and how, and how long it is expected to take (15(b)); of other diagnostic and treatment options, their benefits and risks and their likely effects on health (15(c)); and of possible complications (15(ç)).

Article 18 requires the information to be given as plainly as possible, without room for doubt, and in a way the patient can understand given his or her social and cultural background. As a rule, the health professional who will perform the intervention informs the patient orally; where circumstances make a different person necessary, another professional competent to inform may do so, after explaining this to the patient. Outside emergencies, the patient is given a reasonable time. The same article allows the patient to ask for a second opinion from another doctor on the same complaint.

For interventions where legislation requires it, or where a dispute is medically likely, the facility prepares a consent form containing the Article 15 information. Its content is explained orally and the form is signed in two copies: one goes into the patient’s file and the other to the patient. The form is signed by the health professional who gave the information and will perform the intervention, and that professional is responsible for the accuracy of the information given (Article 26). A patient who never received a copy, or whose form names a different surgeon, has a concrete point to put to the clinic.

For hair transplants the rules are more specific. An informed consent form is taken from every patient, photographs of the donor area and of the area to be treated, before and after the procedure, are attached to it, and the parties sign it (Hair Transplant Units Regulation, Article 10(2)(ç)). A patient information form recording the technique, the number and region of the grafts, photographs taken before the procedure and within the first 72 hours after it, and the names of the team is completed on the Ministry’s system and archived (Article 10(3)).

The waiver signed on arrival

Some clinics ask foreign patients to sign broad waivers. Signing does not settle the matter: under TBK Article 115(1), any agreement made in advance that frees the debtor from liability for gross fault is absolutely void. Under Article 115(3), where a service, profession or trade requiring expertise may only be carried on with a permit granted by law or the competent authorities, an advance agreement excluding liability even for slight fault is absolutely void. Clauses that try to exclude liability for the acts of auxiliaries meet the same rule under Article 116(3). Practising medicine in Türkiye requires a diploma from a faculty of medicine (Law No. 1219, Article 1), and the same law sets separate requirements for dentistry (Article 30).

Clinic, doctor or agency: who answers under Turkish law

The clinic as the contracting party

A patient who paid a clinic has, first, a contract claim. Under TBK Article 112, if an obligation is not performed at all or not performed properly, the debtor must make good the creditor’s resulting loss unless it proves that no fault at all can be attributed to it. It is therefore for the clinic to show the absence of fault. The clinic also answers for damage its auxiliaries, such as employed doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians, cause to the other party while carrying out the work (Article 116(1)), and the tort rules apply to breach of contract by analogy (Article 114(2)).

There is no chapter on treatment contracts in the Code. Article 502 defines mandate and applies its rules, as far as they fit, to the work-type contracts the Code does not regulate. Under Article 506, the mandatary has to do the work personally, unless authorised to hand it on or unless necessity or custom permits it (paragraph 1); has to act loyally and carefully (paragraph 2); and is judged by what a prudent mandatary taking on similar work would have done (paragraph 3). If the dentist named in the treatment plan is not the one who fitted the veneers, Article 506(1) and Article 15(b) of the Patient Rights Regulation are the starting point.

Individual doctors and dentists, and those who employ them

Where the patient’s contract was with the clinic, a claim against the individual doctor or dentist rests on tort. A person who causes damage to another by a faulty and unlawful act must make it good (TBK Article 49(1)), and the injured person must prove the damage and the fault (Article 50(1)). An employer is liable for damage an employee causes in the course of the work assigned, unless it proves that it took the care required in choosing, instructing and supervising the employee to prevent the damage (Article 66(1) and (2)). Where the employer runs a business, Article 66(3) adds liability for harm caused by the business’s activities, which it escapes only by proving that its working organisation was suited to preventing the damage.

In a hair transplant unit, opening the channels is reserved to doctors holding a hair transplant certificate, plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons, dermatologists, and doctors holding a medical aesthetics certificate. Harvesting the follicles and placing them in the channels may be done by those doctors or by health professionals holding a hair transplant assistant certificate (Hair Transplant Units Regulation, Article 9(3), as amended on 12 September 2025). The certified assistants act under those doctors’ supervision and responsibility (Article 9(4)). The patient information form naming the team is the record that shows who did what.

An agency in Türkiye or in the UK

UK patients often buy the whole trip in one booking from a company that markets to British customers: clinic, hotel, airport transfers and an interpreter. In the Regulation’s words, an intermediary (aracı kuruluş) is an establishment operated by authorised legal entities which advises international health tourists and those travelling with them and organises the health facility, accommodation, transport and transfer (Health Tourism Regulation, Article 4(1)(a)). No facility or intermediary may operate in international health tourism without an authorisation certificate; the Ministry of Health issues it to facilities and USHAŞ to intermediaries (Article 5(1)).

At a minimum, the agency is liable under TBK Article 112 for the services its own contract promised. The TKHK defines a provider as anyone offering services to consumers for commercial or professional purposes, or acting in the name or on behalf of the party offering them (Article 3(1)(ı)), so the agency’s actual role is worth examining closely. If the agency is a UK company with no presence in Türkiye, whether it can be sued in the UK, and under which of the UK’s legal systems, is a question for a UK solicitor.

More than one defendant

Joint and several liability applies where several persons together cause one damage, or where they are liable for the same damage on different grounds (TBK Article 61). If a single defendant is liable on several legal grounds, the judge rules on the ground that gives the injured person the most favourable redress, unless the injured person asks for something else or the law provides otherwise (Article 60). Liability insurance may exist on the side of the doctors and the facility; once the defendants are known, the file looks at the insurer’s position as well.

Losses a UK patient can claim

Bodily damage under TBK Article 54 includes, in particular, the cost of treatment, lost earnings, the loss caused by reduced or lost ability to work, and the loss caused by damage to a person’s economic future. For a UK patient, the cost of corrective treatment paid for privately at home, such as a replacement set of veneers, is the obvious first item, proved by invoices and receipts in pounds. For harm to bodily integrity, the judge may in addition order payment of a suitable sum as non-pecuniary damages, having regard to the circumstances of the case (Article 56(1)). How each head is quantified is covered in the site’s guide to medical malpractice compensation.

If the treatment is a consumer transaction, the TKHK gives the consumer a choice of remedies against the provider for a defective service: having the service performed again, repair at no charge of the work produced by the service, a price reduction proportionate to the defect, or withdrawal from the contract, together with compensation under the TBK (Article 15(1)).

Mediation first, then the consumer court or the civil court

Under TKHK Article 3(1)(l), a consumer transaction is any contract or legal act between a consumer and someone acting for commercial or professional purposes, contracts for work and mandate included. Whether a given dental, hair or surgical treatment fits that definition is one of the first things to settle. If it does:

• the consumer courts hear disputes arising from consumer transactions (Article 73(1)), and suits that consumers bring there are exempt from the fees under the Fees Law (Article 73(2));
• the lawsuit is admissible only if a mediator was approached before filing (Article 73/A(1)), although the requirement does not apply to, among others, disputes that fall to the consumer arbitration committees (Article 73/A(1)(a));
• those committees must be used for disputes worth less than the threshold in Article 68(1), which rises each calendar year by the revaluation rate, and cannot be used for disputes above it (Article 68(1) and (4)).

Nobody has to fly to Türkiye for this: a party may take part in the mediation personally or through a legal representative or a lawyer (Mediation Law No. 6325, Article 15(6)). Because Article 73/A makes mediation a condition of the lawsuit, the rules of Article 18/A apply (paragraph 1), including paragraph 15: from the day of the application to the mediation bureau until the final minutes are drawn up, limitation stops running and forfeiture periods do not run.

Outside consumer law, the default court is the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi): HMK Article 2(1) gives it claims about property rights and personal rights, regardless of their value, unless another rule says otherwise.

Which Turkish court, and which law applies

Turkish courts take their international jurisdiction from the ordinary domestic venue rules (MÖHUK Article 40). In practice that means the defendant’s domicile (HMK Article 6(1)); the domicile of any one defendant where there are several (Article 7(1)); for contract claims, additionally the place of performance (Article 10); and for torts, additionally the place where the act was committed or where the damage occurred or may occur, which Article 16(1) lists among other venues.

The governing law is decided under MÖHUK as well. If the parties chose a law for the contract, that law applies (Article 24(1)). Without a choice, the contract is governed by the law most closely connected with it; for contracts made in the course of commercial or professional activity, that is taken to be the law of the workplace of the party performing the characteristic obligation (or, if there is none, of its domicile), unless the circumstances as a whole show a more closely connected law (Article 24(4)). MÖHUK Article 26 has a special rule for consumer contracts, but its paragraph 4 switches that rule off, package tours apart, where the service has to be supplied to the consumer in a country other than the one in which he or she habitually resides. Whether a treatment-and-travel package bought from a UK agency counts as a package tour for that purpose is a question the text does not answer.

Tort obligations are governed by the law of the country where the tort was committed (Article 34(1)). Where the act and the damage occur in different countries, the law of the country where the damage occurred applies (Article 34(2)), and if the relationship is more closely connected with another country, that country’s law applies (Article 34(3)). Where both the treatment and the injury happened in Türkiye and no other law was chosen, these rules point to Turkish law as a starting point. Where complications first appeared after the return to Liverpool, Glasgow or Cardiff, Article 34(2) and (3) have to be looked at before the claim is filed.

Security for costs

A foreign individual or company that brings a claim in a Turkish court must provide the security the court sets to cover court and enforcement costs and the other side’s losses (MÖHUK Article 48(1)), and the court exempts the claimant on the basis of reciprocity (Article 48(2)). A claimant with Turkish citizenship is not a foreigner for this purpose and falls outside the rule. For British claimants there is also a 1931 convention between the United Kingdom and Türkiye on legal proceedings in civil and commercial matters, approved in Türkiye by Law No. 2045 and listed by the Turkish Ministry of Justice among the bilateral treaties in place. Its Article 12 provides that, as regards security for costs, orders for the payment of costs and expenses, free judicial assistance and imprisonment for debt, the subjects or citizens of each party enjoy in the other’s territory “a perfect equality of treatment” with its own subjects or citizens. How the court applies this to a particular claimant is decided in the file, so it is sensible to plan for the possibility of a security request.

How a Turkish court decides whether the care fell short

Whether a dentist or a surgeon met the required standard is a medical question. HMK Article 266(1) sends questions that need special or technical knowledge beyond law to a court-appointed expert (bilirkişi), instructed at a party’s request or on the court’s own initiative; matters that general knowledge, experience or a judge’s legal training can resolve may not be referred. The parties are also free to commission their own scientific opinion on the case (Article 293(1)). The judge may decide to hear that person, and if he or she does not attend without a valid excuse, the report is not taken into account (Article 293(2) and (3)).

This is where the UK records count. A Liverpool dentist’s notes on the fit of each veneer, a Glasgow GP’s record of the infection and the test results, or the discharge letter from the hospital in Wales are facts that a court-appointed expert in Türkiye can weigh against the Turkish file. Records in English need a Turkish translation filed with them, and the court can call for an official translation (HMK Article 223). Official documents issued by foreign authorities need confirmation by the competent authority of the issuing state or by the relevant Turkish consulate to count as official in Türkiye, with treaty rules on authentication reserved (Article 224). The Apostille Convention, in force for the United Kingdom since 24 January 1965 and for Türkiye since 29 September 1985, provides that treaty route. A report written by a UK doctor is not automatically an official document, but a certified signature followed by an apostille makes its origin harder to dispute.

Time limits: one set of facts, several clocks

A good claim brought too late is still lost. In a treatment case several periods may apply at once, and each starts on its own date:

• Tort: two years from the date the injured person learned of the damage and of the person liable, and in any event ten years from the act; if the act is an offence for which criminal law provides a longer limitation period, that period applies (TBK Article 72(1)).
• Contract, general rule: ten years unless the law provides otherwise (Article 146), running from the date the claim falls due (Article 149(1)).
• Mandate and contracts for work: five years for claims arising from mandate, commission and agency contracts (Article 147(5)), and five years for claims arising from a contract for work, except where the contractor failed to perform through gross fault (Article 147(6)).
• Defective work: actions for a defective work other than an immovable structure become time-barred two years after delivery, or twenty years where the contractor was grossly at fault (Article 478).
• Defective service to a consumer: two years from performance of the service, even if the defect appears later, unless a statute or the contract sets a longer period; the limitation rules do not apply where the defect was concealed through gross fault or fraud (TKHK Article 16).
• Criminal complaint for negligent injury, where the offence requires one: six months from the day the person entitled learns of the act and of the perpetrator, provided the limitation period has not run out (Turkish Penal Code, Article 73(1) and (2)).

TBK Article 148 forbids changing by contract the periods fixed in that part of the Code, which are those in Articles 146 and 147. Whether a claim under a treatment contract falls under the five-year rule for mandate or the general ten-year rule, whether a dental prosthesis brings in the rules on contracts for work, and whether the consumer rules apply, are characterisation questions the statutes do not settle in advance. No statute sets one deadline counted from the date of treatment. Until those points are settled, the safe planning assumption is the shortest civil limitation period that could apply, two years, counted from the earliest date on which any of these periods could start, which is the date of the treatment itself (for veneers or crowns, the day they were fitted). That is a working margin, not the statutory rule.

Applied to the three examples: for the Liverpool veneers, the contract-for-work period runs from delivery and the consumer period from performance of the service, and for fitted veneers both will normally mean the day of fitting; for the Glasgow patient, the tort period runs from the date he learned of the damage and of who was liable for it; for the Cardiff patient, the surgery in Izmir and the readmission in Wales give two dates that may both matter.

Writing to the clinic does not stop the clock. Under TBK Article 154, limitation is interrupted when the debtor acknowledges the debt, in particular by paying interest, making a part payment, giving a pledge or providing a guarantor, or when the creditor sues or raises the claim as a defence before a court or arbitrator, starts enforcement proceedings or lodges the claim in bankruptcy. Bargaining with the clinic is not among these grounds, and a reply from the clinic counts only if its wording amounts to acknowledging the debt. If the contract-for-work rules apply, the patient must examine the work after delivery as soon as the ordinary course of things allows and report any defects within a suitable time (Article 474(1)); a defect that appears later must be reported to the contractor without delay, or the work is deemed accepted (Article 477(3)).

A claim in a UK court raises different questions

Suing in a UK court is a natural first thought for many patients. That depends on the law of the part of the UK where the claim would be brought. A patient in Liverpool or Cardiff would be looking at the courts of England and Wales, a patient in Glasgow at the Scottish courts, and the answer belongs to a solicitor qualified there. Lex Lata advises on Turkish law only. From the Turkish side, the solicitor will want two facts.

The first is service. Court documents for a defendant in Türkiye travel under the Hague Service Convention, in force for Türkiye since 28 April 1972, and Türkiye has declared its opposition to the methods in Article 10 of that Convention, which include sending documents by post. The 1931 convention between the United Kingdom and Türkiye also contains rules on service (Articles 2 to 6). Which route a UK court uses is decided on the UK side; if enforcement is later sought in Türkiye, the Turkish court looks at the summons under MÖHUK Article 54(1)(ç), which concerns proper summons and representation under the law of the place where the judgment was given. Service routes and Türkiye’s objections are set out in serving UK court documents and taking evidence in Türkiye.

The second is enforcement. A judgment from a court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland cannot be executed in Türkiye until a competent Turkish court grants an enforcement decision (MÖHUK Article 50(1)). Among the conditions, Article 54(1)(a) requires an agreement based on reciprocity between Türkiye and the state where the judgment was given, or a statutory provision or actual practice in that state that allows Turkish judgments to be enforced. No treaty between the United Kingdom and Türkiye provides for the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments in general (child-protection measures and child-support decisions can fall under the 1996 and 2007 Hague conventions instead, MÖHUK Article 1(2)); the 1931 convention covers procedure and only certain costs orders. That procedure has its own guide: enforcing a UK court judgment in Türkiye.

Reporting the injury to a Turkish prosecutor

The Turkish Penal Code (TCK, Law No. 5237) makes it an offence, in Article 89(1), to cause another person bodily pain or to impair his or her health or perception through negligence; paragraphs 2 and 3 raise the penalty for the graver outcomes they list. Under Article 89(5), the case is investigated and prosecuted only on a complaint, except where the injury goes beyond paragraph 1 and was caused with conscious negligence. The complaint must be made within six months from the day the person entitled learns of the act and of the perpetrator, provided the overall limitation period has not expired (Article 73(1) and (2)).

The criminal file decides criminal liability, not damages; money is claimed through the civil routes above. Withdrawing a complaint can close that civil route too: if the public prosecution is dropped because of the withdrawal and the victim, when withdrawing, also expressly gave up his or her personal rights, no civil action can be brought afterwards (Article 73(7)).

Running the file from Liverpool, Glasgow or Cardiff

Representation in Türkiye rests on a power of attorney, which a British patient can sign before a notary or a solicitor in the UK. Under the gov.uk guidance, documents other than official UK documents can be legalised if they have been certified by a UK public official such as a notary or solicitor, and the FCDO Legalisation Office then issues the apostille for documents from every part of the UK. A Turkish citizen living in the UK can instead have the power drawn up at the Turkish Embassy in London or at a Turkish Consulate General in London, Edinburgh or Manchester, because notarial functions abroad are carried out by consuls (Notaries Law No. 1512, Article 191). Draft the power with care. HMK Article 74(1) bars a lawyer who lacks express authority from, among other things, settling, using alternative dispute resolution, waiving the claim or releasing the opponent. Step-by-step guidance is in power of attorney and apostille from the UK.

Istanbul is on UTC+3 all year. London is two hours behind during British Summer Time and three hours behind in winter (GMT). UK clocks change on the last Sunday of March and of October, and Türkiye does not change at all, so calls and mediation meetings are arranged around a gap that moves twice a year. Questions about UK tax on any award, private medical insurance in the UK or a parallel claim in a UK court belong to a UK-qualified adviser.

What Lex Lata does on these files

Lex Lata represents patients living in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in claims under Turkish law against clinics, private hospitals, doctors, dentists and health tourism intermediaries. Files are run in English over email and video calls. The usual steps are a written request for the Turkish records and a review of what comes back, sworn Turkish translations of the UK notes and letters, a power of attorney fit for the purpose, and representation in mediation and in court. Lex Lata advises on Turkish law only and can work alongside a patient’s UK solicitor where there is one. You can reach the office through the contact page. The overview for clients in the United Kingdom lists the other guides in this series, and the site’s health law practice page and legal guide to medical tourism in Türkiye give further background.