Paul Anthony Read v Julie Karen Hoarean & Anor

In disputes about the disposal of a deceased person’s body, the court’s overriding consideration is a decent, respectful and prompt disposal. The court should consider the deceased’s wishes, the reasonable wishes of family and friends, and the deceased’s connections with relevant places, while retaining flexibility to consider other circumstances.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction extends both to deciding who should conduct funeral arrangements and to directing how the body and ashes should be dealt with. Where competing persons have equal priority under Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, the court may also use section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to pass over one person where special circumstances make that necessary and expedient.

The claimant and first defendant were the parents of an 18-year-old man who died intestate. They agreed that he should be cremated at Caversham, Reading, but disagreed about the disposal of his ashes. The claimant sought scattering at Dartmoor, with which the deceased had a strong personal and family connection. The first defendant sought an equal division of the ashes so that she could inter them in her family grave.

The deceased’s body remained in a mortuary pending the coroner’s inquest, although the coroner confirmed that it could be released. The claim, issued in the King’s Bench Division and transferred to the Chancery Division, required the court to determine who should arrange the funeral and how the body and ashes should be disposed of.

1. Jurisdiction and priority. Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 gave both parents equal priority to apply for a grant of Letters of Administration. There was no general property in a human body, but there was a common-law duty to arrange its proper disposal. The court had inherent jurisdiction to determine responsibility for funeral arrangements and to direct how the body should be disposed of.
2. Section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 permitted the court, where special circumstances made it necessary and expedient, to pass over a person otherwise entitled to a grant. That power was capable of applying where two parents had equal priority under Rule 22. The restrictive analysis in Anstey v Mundle was questioned as reading section 116 too literally and insufficiently recognising its purpose.
3. Applicable considerations. The overriding consideration was that the body should be disposed of with decency, respect and without undue delay. The court should consider the deceased’s wishes, the wishes of family and friends, and the locations with which the deceased was most closely connected. Those factors were significant but not exhaustive: each case remained highly fact-sensitive.
4. The evidence established that the deceased’s wishes were not fully known, although a previous suicide note supported cremation. He had significant connections with both Caversham and Dartmoor, but the evidence showed a particularly strong connection with Dartmoor, where he felt free and at peace. The cremation was therefore directed to take place at Caversham, with the ashes to be scattered near Hound Tor on Dartmoor. The ashes were not to be divided.
5. The father was granted Letters of Administration limited to dealing with the disposal of the body and ashes. He was directed to arrange the cremation promptly, while allowing the mother an opportunity to spend time with the deceased and, if she wished, to have a separate service. Funeral arrangements were to be communicated to her. Permission to appeal was refused under CPR 52.6, although the order was not to take effect for two weeks.

This was a first-instance decision. Following the judgment, the first defendant applied for permission to appeal and a stay. The application for permission was refused under CPR 52.6. The order was deferred for two weeks to allow an application to a High Court Judge.