William Quentin Godwin v Jason Peter Godwin

Where competing relatives propose different methods for disposing of a deceased person’s body, the court’s overriding concern is respectful, decent and prompt disposal. The deceased’s wishes are important but not determinative. The court may consider the reasonable wishes of family and friends, the location with which the deceased was most closely connected, delay, practicalities and other relevant circumstances. The factors are non-exhaustive and each case is fact-sensitive. Where no grant of representation has been made, the court may appoint an administrator limited to disposal of the body under Senior Courts Act 1981, s 116, and may give directions governing the disposal.

Michael Godwin died on 5 November 2025. His sons, William and Jason, disagreed about the disposal of his body. Jason sought a Christian burial in a cemetery at Hargeville, France, reflecting wishes expressed in a 2003 will and a 2012 document. William sought an English cremation, relying on practical considerations and his understanding of his father’s later wishes.

The body had remained with an undertaker for more than five months. No grant of representation had been made, and the court therefore had to determine both the appropriate legal mechanism and the proper disposal arrangements.

1. Disposition. The claimant was appointed administrator of Michael Godwin’s estate, limited to disposal of his body. The body was ordered to be buried, not cremated, in England, as part of a Church of England funeral open to those wishing to attend.
2. The court held that, where there are competing proposals, it is not required to adopt either proposal in full. Its focus is respectful, decent disposal without unnecessary delay. The deceased’s wishes are a weighty factor, but they do not determine the outcome. The court may also consider the reasonable wishes of family and friends, the location with which the deceased was most closely connected, practical arrangements, delay and other relevant circumstances. The list is not closed.
3. The evidence established a consistent wish for burial and a religious funeral, but did not establish that Hargeville itself remained important independently of the deceased’s former relationship with Ms Thomas. France was the place with which he was most closely associated, but burial at Hargeville would involve substantial delay, translation difficulties and little prospect of regular visits by mourners. England was more practical because the claimant was present and had already engaged undertakers.
4. Cost was not given significant weight. The estate was solvent and sufficient funds were available. The claimant’s uncorroborated evidence about alleged liabilities and his father’s alleged view that repatriation was wasteful was rejected.
5. The claimant was directed to invite the defendant, Ms Godwin, Michael and, if contact details were available, the deceased’s two granddaughters. The invitation to the defendant had to be given at least seven days before the funeral and state its date, time and location.