Hartshorne v Gardner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | S Proudman |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC B3 Ch |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | 8BM300068 |
| Date | 14 March 2008 |
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC B3 (Ch)
High Court, Chancery Division (Birmingham Registry)
Judge:S Proudman QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge)
8BM300068
Representation:N Preston (instructed by Hallmarks) for the Claimant; E Kelly (instructed by Thursfields) for the Defendant.
Issue: Whether a body should be released to the deceased's father or mother for disposal.
Facts: D died in a road traffic accident and was intestate. His parents, who had been divorced for 35 years, did not agree over the form or place of his funeral or internment. Although both parties lived in Worcester the Claimant father wished for D to be buried in Kington where D had lived with his fiance. The Defendant wished for cremation in Worcester some 40 miles away. D's body therefore remained in a mortuary under the authority of the Coroner, who would not release the body to either party without the agreement of the other or an order of the court. The parties agreed that the Court could decide the dispute under its inherent jurisdiction.
Held: D's body should be disposed of with all proper respect and decency and, if possible, without further delay. The applicable law allowed the person with the grant of administration to make decisions about disposal, however, as the deceased was intestate the Claimant and the Defendant, as the surviving parents, had equal priority to a grant of administration.
It was not the role of the court to dictate any other choice than those options proposed by the Claimant and Defendant. The court should be slow to make findings as to the details of the deceased's family relationships. The relevant factors as to the venue of interment were, firstly, those that do or might be expected to reflect the wishes of D himself, and secondly, those that reflected the reasonable wishes and requirements of family and friends who were left.
In the eight years before his death D had made his home with his fiance in Kington, where his work and his friends were also based. At most he made infrequent visits to the Defendant in Worcester. The D's father, brother and fiance all wished for him to be buried in Kington. That there would be transport difficulties for the Defendant to visit a grave in Kington did not outweigh these factors. The issue was therefore decided in favour of the Claimant.
1. Duncan Hartshorne, to whom I shall refer as the deceased, died intestate on 20 October 2007 at the age of 44 in a road traffic accident, in which his fiance, Miss Kathryn Housley, was also injured. The Claimant is the deceased's father and the Defendant his mother. They were divorced more than 35 years ago. The Claimant has brought this action for the court to decide whether the deceased's body should be released to him as he asks, or to the Defendant, because they cannot agree as to the form or place of the funeral or interment. The Claimant, although he himself lives in Worcester, wants a burial in Kington: the Defendant a cremation in Worcester, where she continues to live. Worcester and Kington are some forty miles apart. The deceased's body is in the mortuary at Hereford Hospital under the authority of the Coroner, who will not release the body to either party without the agreement of the other or an order of the court. The parties agree that this Court can use its inherent jurisdiction to decide the dispute and I have to do so.
2. This is an exceptionally distressing and painful case for both parents and the deceased's fiance and other family and friends. Plainly a decision between the earnest wishes of two grieving parents requires the wisdom of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Takamore v Clarke COA CA
...above n 170; Murdoch v Rhind, above n 170. 177 Williams v Williams, ibid, at 664. 178 Calma v Sesar (1992) 106 FLR 446 (NTSC) at 452; Hartshorne v Gardner [2008] EWHC B3 (Ch) at 179 R v Stewart (1840) 12 Ad & E 773 at 778 per Lord Denman CJ. 180 For example the Burial and Cremation Act 196......
-
Re JS (A Child) (Disposal of body)
...Law Reporting for England & Wales [2017] 4 WLR 1 In re JS (A Child) (Disposal of Body: Prospective Orders) (Fam D)Hartshorne v Gardner [2008] 2 FLR 1681) or as an application to displace the administrator of anestate, pursuant to section 116 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (see Burrows and Ib......
-
Monalisa Veronica Walker v Deno Alexander Smith Jr
...said: “17. I have been referred to the other route for dispute resolution, namely, the inherent jurisdiction. In Hartshorne v Gardner [2008] 2 FLR 1681, the court ordered the release of the deceased's body of an adult child to the birth father under the inherent jurisdiction and identified ......
-
Jennyfer Pangou v Rina Nzoulou
...suitable cases it does have inherent jurisdiction to give directions as to how the body should be disposed of. In Hartshorne v Gardner [2008] 2 FLR 1681, Proudman J considered she could decide a combination of place and method of disposal of the body, which had not been proposed by the 12 I......
-
Burial Disputes
...in cases where the parents are separated or divorced. The cases of Fessi v Whitmore [1999] 1 FLR 767 and Hartshorne v Gardner [2008] EWHC B3 (Ch) best illustrate the nature of the conflicts that can arise between parents and the factors which the court will take into account when determinin......
-
Table of Cases
...Hart v Dabbs; sub nom Dabbs (Lawrence Stanley) (Deceased), Re [2001] WTLR 527, [2000] All ER (D) 934, ChD 71 Hartshorne v Gardner [2008] EWHC B3 (Ch), [2008] EWHC 3675 (Ch), [2008] 2 FLR 1681, [2008] Fam Law 985 141, 142–143, 152 Hawes v Burgess [2013] EWCA Civ 74, [2013] WTLR 453, [2013] A......
-
Frozen Corpses and Feuding Parents: Re JS (Disposal of Body)
...proposed38 This was highlighted by Peter Jackson J in his judgment, see Re JS ibid at [25].39 See, for example, Hartshorne vGardner [2008] EWHC B3 (Ch) at [7] (the deceased’s wishes are‘one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration’) and Anstey vMundle [2016] EWHC1073 (Ch) at [......