Haqq, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for Inner West London

Where competing claims are made for the release of a deceased person’s remains, the court is not confined to identifying the person entitled to administer the estate. The personal representative will ordinarily be the appropriate person, but the court may resolve an equal or competing claim on a practical basis, taking account of all the circumstances and the interests of those affected.

Where an urgent decision is required, the court may proceed on the evidence available, making a provisional assessment of its weight rather than concluded findings on disputed issues of fact or law. The decision may be directed to the prompt release and disposal of the remains while leaving succession and other issues open for later determination.

The claimant sought judicial review of the coroner’s refusal to release the remains of her deceased husband. The second defendant claimed to be his later wife following a marriage ceremony in Bangladesh and sought release of the body to her.

The parties disputed the deceased’s domicile, the validity of the later marriage, the person entitled to letters of administration, and the appropriate destination of the remains. The inquest had concluded, and all parties asked the court to make an urgent declaratory decision because delay was inconsistent with Islamic burial customs.

1. Judicial review. The coroner had lawfully refused to release the body when he did so. He had received serious and conflicting representations supporting competing claims, and it would have been irresponsible to release the remains without further information. The judicial review claim, considered alone, would therefore fail.
2. Urgent declaratory relief. With the agreement of all parties, the court determined entitlement to the remains on the evidence available. The factual and legal issues were potentially complex, including domicile, Bangladeshi law and the validity of the later marriage. The court made no concluded findings on those issues, but assessed the weight of the evidence and exercised its discretion. The parties remained able to reopen the issues for other purposes, including succession and representation of the estate.
3. Relevant approach. The personal representatives, rather than family members simply as such, ordinarily have the right to arrange the disposal of the remains. The principles in Williams v Williams [1882] 20 Ch.D 659 and Jervis supported that starting point. The decisions in Buchanan v Milton [1999] 2 FLR 844 and Fessi v Whitmore [1999] 1 FLR 767 supported resolving competing claims pragmatically, with regard to the background, the parties’ views, fairness and justice.
4. Application. The evidence strongly favoured England as the deceased’s domicile of choice and did not convincingly establish a later change to Bangladesh. The long family life in England, continuing relationships with the claimant and their children, and the practical advantages of prompt release outweighed the competing factors, including the asserted wish for burial in Bangladesh and the interests of the unborn child. The claimant was declared entitled to release of the body.
5. Permission to appeal was refused because the matter involved an exercise of discretion, no arguable case had been shown, and a speedy resolution was required. The publicly funded parties’ costs were directed to detailed assessment.