Williams v Williams

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Date1881
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
24 cases
  • Burrows v HM Coroner for Preston
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 15 May 2008
    ...interest in a deceased person's body. That can be traced back as far as Blackstone's Commentaries and was stated very emphatically in Williams v Williams (1882) LR 20 ChD 659. In Smith v Tamworth City Council [1997] NSWSC 197 Young J, after a thorough review of the Commonwealth decisions an......
  • X
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 March 2003
    ......64; [1992] 4 All E.R. 627, dicta of Lord Donaldson, M.R. at 639, considered. . (12) Williams v. Williams (1882), 20 Ch.D. 659; [1881-5] All E.R. Rep. 840, followed. . (13) Z v. Finland (1997), 25 E.H.R.R. 371, considered. . ......
  • Takamore v Clarke SC
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 December 2012
    ...common law applied only to the extent it was not inconsistent with the tikanga. Held (per majority): In most common law jurisdictions, Williams v Williams was treated as the authority on the responsibilities and rights of personal representatives in relation to the body of a deceased person......
  • Takamore v Clarke COA CA
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 23 November 2011
    ...significance. There was no property in a dead body. Burial instructions in a will were not legally binding and could not be enforced ( Williams v Williams; and Murdoch v Rhind.) Jim had not given any formal instructions on where he wished to be buried and had not discussed any arrangements ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Taking Body Parts To The Cashier: Are The Courts Too Slow To Register?
    • Australia
    • University of Western Australia Law Review Nbr. 40-1, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...Reports ¶80-295, 69,203. 17Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204, 241, 229. 18Above n 9, 27. 19Williams v Williams (1992) 20 Ch D 659, 662. 20Williams v Williams (1992) 20 Ch D 659, 665; R v Kelly [1998] 3 All ER 741, 749 (Rose LJ). 21Hayne’s Case (1613) 77 ER 1389; R v Sharpe ......
  • PROPERTY RIGHTS IN HUMAN TISSUE — CALLING “A SPADE, A SPADE”
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...Cal. 3d 120 at 163. 24 Supra note 16, at para 5.3, p 14. 25 R v Fox, 2 Q.B., 246; R v Coleridge, 2 B. & A., 806; and Williams v Williams, 20 Ch. D., 659. 26 Supra note 13, at paragraph 10.2, pp 77-78. 27 But it cannot at that moment, while awaiting burial, be the subject of larceny, since t......
  • The Dead, the Law, and the Politics of the Past
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Law and Society Nbr. 31-4, December 2004
    • 1 December 2004
    ...i f a person dies intestate, pers onal representatives)`claiming' a body in order to facilitate disposal ± see Williams v. Williams (1882)20 Ch.D. 659 and Dobson v. North Tyneside Area Health Authority [1996] 4 AllE.R. 474. For an excellent critique of this rule, see P. Matthews, `Whose Bod......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT