Bains v Arsalan - Funeral Arrangements

In a burial dispute, the court must determine who should control the funeral arrangements by applying the statutory order of priority for a grant of administration and, where appropriate, the power under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The assessment is fact-specific and may take account of all relevant circumstances, including the deceased’s religious and family connections, the wishes of the deceased and family members, and the conduct of a person seeking priority. Biological connection and parental responsibility are relevant but confer no automatic priority. The court determines who has authority to arrange the funeral, rather than directing the place or manner of burial. The inherent jurisdiction remains available, but ordinarily should be considered only where section 116 or other applicable statutory and procedural powers do not provide an adequate route.

Harleen Bains died in 2020 aged two months after sustaining fatal injuries inflicted by her mother, who was convicted of murder in February 2026. Harleen’s mother, who had converted to Islam, instructed a bereavement service to arrange an Islamic burial. Harleen’s paternal grandmother applied for an injunction and then for letters of administration so that a Sikh funeral could take place.

An interim injunction prevented the proposed burial. At the final hearing, the applicant argued that the mother was barred by the Forfeiture Act 1982 from applying for administration and, alternatively, that she should be passed over under rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 and section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The central issue was who should have authority to make the funeral arrangements.

1. Forfeiture and priority. The court accepted, with some hesitation because the mother was unrepresented, that the interplay between the Forfeiture Act 1982 and rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 disentitled the mother, as the person convicted of unlawfully killing Harleen, from applying for or receiving a grant of administration. The court relied on Scotching v Birch [2008] EWHC 844.
2. Alternative section 116 analysis. If the mother retained entitlement to apply, rule 22 nevertheless placed her first in the relevant order of priority. Section 116 required a two-stage inquiry: first, identify special circumstances capable of displacing the ordinary order; secondly, decide whether, in light of those circumstances, it was necessary or expedient to appoint another administrator.
3. Special circumstances are not confined to matters concerning the estate or its administration. The court must undertake a broad, fact-specific evaluation of all relevant circumstances. Relevant considerations may include the deceased’s wishes, religious upbringing, closest connections, and the reasonable wishes of family and friends. Biological connection and parental responsibility are relevant factors but are not determinative.
4. On the facts, the mother’s conviction for brutally killing Harleen, her false accounts, Harleen’s Sikh identity and upbringing, the father’s expressed wishes, and the paternal family’s close relationship and religious commitment outweighed the mother’s biological relationship, parental responsibility and Islamic wishes. It was necessary and expedient to grant the paternal grandmother letters of administration so that she could arrange a Sikh funeral.
5. The court’s power was to determine who should make the arrangements, not to direct where or how the funeral should occur. The same result would have been reached under the inherent jurisdiction, although section 116 was the appropriate primary route.

Letters of administration were granted to the paternal grandmother.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision was stated.