Julie Karen Hoarean v Paul Anthony Read

Applications to adjourn an appeal on medical grounds require sufficiently detailed, independent and reasoned medical evidence. The evidence should explain the practitioner’s familiarity with the party’s condition, the features preventing participation, the prognosis and any reasonable accommodations. Fresh evidence on appeal is admitted sparingly and must satisfy the Ladd v Marshall conditions. An appellate court will not interfere with factual findings or evaluative balancing absent an error of principle or law, or findings which no reasonable judge could have made. In disputes about funeral arrangements and ashes, the court must prioritise dignified and respectful disposal without undue delay, while considering the deceased’s wishes, the wishes of family and friends, and relevant connections with places.

The appellant, the deceased’s mother, appealed against an order made by Chief Master Shuman on 3 December 2024 concerning the funeral and disposal of her son’s ashes. The order authorised the respondent, his father, to arrange cremation and scatter the ashes on Dartmoor, while permitting the appellant to attend the relevant ceremonies and to hold a memorial service.

The appellant sought an adjournment, permission to rely on further evidence and permission to appeal. The appeal raised issues concerning medical evidence, fresh evidence, Article 8 of the ECHR, factual findings and the balancing exercise concerning the ashes.

1. Adjournment. The hearing was not adjourned. The medical letters were treated as before the court, although they had not been properly disclosed to the respondent. Applying the guidance in Levy v Ellis-Carr, as approved in Forresters Ketley v Brent and GMC v Hayat, the evidence lacked sufficient detail about examination, diagnosis, the effect of the conditions on participation, prognosis and independence. It did not explain why July 2026 was significant or why participation would then become possible. The interests of the respondent, the deceased’s family and friends, and the public interest in prompt and respectful disposal also weighed against further delay.
2. Fresh evidence. The proposed evidence was refused. The witness evidence failed the first two Ladd v Marshall conditions because it could have been obtained earlier and would not have materially affected the decision. The selective extracts from records were of uncertain cogency and relevance. They did not undermine the accepted evidence of the deceased’s strong connection with Dartmoor and would not have had an important influence on the case.
3. Merits and appellate restraint. The Chief Master had correctly identified the overarching need for decent and respectful disposal without undue delay, together with the deceased’s wishes, the wishes of family and friends, and relevant geographical connections. No error of principle or law was shown. The appellate court would not interfere with the factual findings or balancing exercise because no finding was one which no reasonable judge could have made.
4. Article 8. The court was prepared to assume that family life may include participation in a dignified ceremony and process for disposing of a body and remains. Elsholz v Germany did not establish a right to maintain a relationship with a deceased child. There was no real prospect of showing an Article 8 violation where the order permitted the appellant to spend time with the body, attend the cremation and scattering, hold a memorial service and use a memorial plaque.
5. Permission to appeal and permission to adduce further evidence were refused, and the appeal was dismissed. A transcript was directed to be produced at public expense.

• Chancery Appeals (ChD): Appeal against the order of Chief Master Shuman dated 3 December 2024. Mr Justice Rajah refused permission to appeal, refused permission to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal.