Re P (Presumption of Death)

Under the Presumption of Death Act 2013, the court must make a declaration where a missing person has not been known to be alive for at least seven years, even if the evidence does not establish that the person has died. A finding of actual death requires clear evidence. Where actual death is not established, the presumed date of death is the end of the seven-year period beginning on the day after the person was last known to be alive. Notice, information and advertisement requirements are mandatory conditions to the court hearing the application.

The applicant, C, acted through his litigation friend and mother, D, seeking a declaration that P, C’s father, was presumed dead. P had disappeared in Peru after last communicating on 16 May 2011. Extensive enquiries had produced no information about him, and he had not been seen or heard of since.

The application raised questions concerning jurisdiction, the applicant’s sufficient interest, compliance with notice and advertisement requirements, and whether the evidence established actual death or only that P had not been known to be alive for at least seven years.

1. Application granted. The court declared that P was presumed to have died at midnight on 16 May 2018.
2. The evidence established that P was domiciled in England and Wales when last known to be alive and had been habitually resident there for more than one year. The jurisdictional requirements in section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 were therefore satisfied.
3. D was not P’s spouse or civil partner. The judgment noted that a long-term cohabitee is not automatically treated as having sufficient interest under section 1(5). D accordingly made the application in C’s name, C being P’s child. The court considered that route sufficient to avoid refusal on the ground of insufficient interest.
4. The information, service and advertisement requirements under section 9 of the Act, CPR 57.20 and CPR 57.21 had been meticulously complied with. The application could therefore be heard.
5. The court distinguished between the two routes under section 2. A finding that P had died under section 2(3) required clear evidence of death. Although the sudden cessation of communication after more than ten years was strongly suggestive, the surrounding circumstances were unknown. The evidence did not establish actual death.
6. The court instead proceeded under section 2(4), which applied because P had not been known to be alive for at least seven years. The seven-year period began on 17 May 2011 and ended at midnight on 16 May 2018. The order was to contain the information required by Schedule 1(2) and to be sent to the Registrar General.

First-instance decision. No appeal or earlier judicial decision is stated in the judgment.