Burial in UK Law

The decisions summarised above illustrate the versatility of Article 8 ECHR, together with the difficulty of drawing a clear boundary between its private and family life dimensions in certain factual contexts. While each belongs to its discrete factual context, these decisions nonetheless illustrate that matters relating to death, burial, mourning and associated rites have been held to fall within the ambit of Article 8.

After considering the point overnight, the learned Judge ruled that such evidence could not be called.After considering the point overnight, the learned Judge ruled that such evidence could not be called. He accepted that if it were relevant, such evidence would be admissible. He accepted that if it were relevant, such evidence would be admissible.

Lord Macnaghten's grouping of the heads of recognised charity in Pemsel's case is one that has proved to be of value and there are many problems which it solves.

First, it may be said that the same evolutionary process which has carried charity from the "repair of churches" to the maintenance of burial grounds (i) in a churchyard (ii) in a cemetery extended from a churchyard, should naturally carry it further so as to embrace the Company's objects. Secondly, and more generally, the Company's objects themselves may directly be seen to be within the preamble's spirit.

The leading case is now Buchanan v Milton [1999] 2 FLR 844. That was a case where the applicant was the natural mother of the deceased. The respondents were persons who were entitled to the grant of letters of administration of the estate. They were his adoptive mother and the mother of his daughter. The dispute arose because the applicant had given her consent to adoption when the deceased was only four days old.

Hale J set out six special circumstances in terms of the requirements of section 116 of the Supreme Court Act.

There is only one further point. He argued that the Temple itself would be a church hall, chapel hall or similar building used in connection with the chapels, and therefore qualifying for exemption under (b). The short answer is that this Temple is not a church hall, chapel hall, nor a similar building. It is not in the least on the same footing as a church hall or chapel hall. It is a very sacred sanctuary, quite different from a building of that category.