References: [2008] EWHC B3 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sonia Proudman QC
Ratio: The deceased died in a motor accident, aged 44. The parties, his mother and father, disputed control over his remains.
Held: Since the claimants had an equal right as his parents to apply for letters of administration, that court could not, by that reason distinguish between them. The authorities suggested that the duty fell on the person with custody of the body in certain circumstances, but no precedent applied to this exact situation. The fact that the deceased made his life in Kington for the last eight years of his life and that his fiancee as well as his father and brother wished him to be buried there, accordingly, outweighed the Defendant’s personal wishes and difficulties in visiting the grave.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Holtham v Arnold ([1986] 2 BMLR 123)
The court considered how it might decide between the competing claims of different family members to have control over the burial of the deceased. Hoffmann J said: ‘there seems to be no doubt that Mrs Holtham on the one side and the family on the . . - Cited – Rex v Stewart ([1840] 12 Ad & E 773)
It is the duty at common law for a householder under whose roof a person has died to make arrangements for the dignified and decent burial of the deceased, at least in circumstances where the deceased is a poor person in relation to whom no other . . - Cited – Williams v Williams ([1882] 20 ChD 659)
By codicil to his will the deceased directed that his executors should give his body to Miss Williams; and by letter he requested her to cremate his body under a pile of wood, to place the ashes into a specified Wedgwood vase and to claim her . . - Cited – Calma v Sesar ((1992) 2 NTLR 37)
(Australia) The court hearing a dispute between family members as to how the deceased should be buried, declined to hear evidence from them about the deceased’s childhood relationships. There was no good reason why the body should be flown thousands . . - Cited – University Hospital Lewisham NHS Trust v Hamuth and others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1609 (Ch))
The body of the deceased had been retained by the hospital pending resolution of legal proceedings relating to his death.
Held: In the absence of nobody else with authority, the hospital having charge of it, could decide on how the body should . . - Cited – Re Grandison; Grandison v Nembhard ChD (Times 10-Jul-89, (1989) 4 BMLR 140)
In a case where there is no dispute as to the executor’s entitlement to act in the estate, the right of the executor to decide on the mode of burial is likely to be accorded a high priority. The deceased’s wishes are one of the relevant factors to . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – RE JS (Disposal of Body) FD (Bailii, [2016] EWHC 2859 (Fam), Judiciary)
JS, a child of 14, anticpating her death from cancer expressed the desire that her body should receive cryonic preservation in the hope that one day a treatment might be available to allow her to be revived, and proceedings were issued. Her parents . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 08 January 2017
Ref: 267087
The post Hartshorne v Gardner: ChD 14 Mar 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.