References: Times 15-Jul-1996, Gazette 29-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 596, [1996] EWCA Civ 1301, (1997) 33 BMLR 146,, [1997] 1 FLR 598, [1997] 8 Med LR 357, [1996] 4 All ER 474, [1997] Fam Law 326, [1997] 2 FCR 651
Links: Bailii
Coram: Peter Gibson LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ, Peter Gibson LJ
Ratio:A post mortem had been carried out by the defendants. The claimants, her grandmother and child sought damages after it was discovered that not all body parts had been returned for burial, some being retained instead for medical research. They now appealed an order striking out their claim on the baiss that it disclosed no reasonable cause of damage.
Held: The appeal failed. Next of kin have no right to regain possession of a deceased’s body part which had been removed for autopsy. There was no ownership of a body after death. The autopsy process did not transform a body part into an object capable of ownership. The claim was pleaded in conversion, bailment and wrongful interference with the brain, and the plaintiffs could not establish that they had the right to possession at the time the brain was disposed of. The plaintiff’s desire to discover exactly what had happened to all the body parts was not a sufficient reason for litigation.
Statutes: Coroners Rules 1984 (1984 No 552)
This case cites:
- Considered – Doodeward -v- Spence ([1908] 6 CLR 40)
(High Court of Australia) The police seized from an exhibitor the body of a two headed still born baby which had been preserved in a bottle.
Held: An order was made for its return: ‘If, then, there can, under some circumstances, be a continued . . - Cited – Armory -v- Delamirie KBD ((1722) 1 Stra 505, Bailii, [1722] EWHC KB J94, [1722] 93 ER 664)
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . . - Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others -v- Customs and Excise Commissioners HL (lip, [1974] AC 133, [1973] 3 WLR 164, [1973] 2 All ER 943, Bailii, [1973] UKHL 6, [1974] RPC 101, [1973] FSR 365)
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . . - 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 – Clarke -v- London General Omnibus Co Ltd ([1906] 2 KB 648)
The parent of an infant child who dies where the parent has the means to do so, has a responsibility to arrange and pay for the burial. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – AB and others -v- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD ([2004] EWHC 644 (QB), Bailii, Times 12-Apr-04, (2004) 77 BMLR 145, [2004] 2 FLR 365, [2004] 3 FCR 324, [2004] Fam Law 501, [2005] 2 WLR 358, [2005] Lloyd’s Rep Med 1, [2005] QB 50)
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference. - Cited – Yearworth and others -v- North Bristol NHS Trust CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 37, Times, WLRD, [2009] WLR (D) 34, (2009) 107 BMLR 47, [2009] LS Law Medical 126, [2009] 2 All ER 986, [2009] 3 WLR 118)
The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13-Jun-16
Ref: 80077
