Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

CORONER: Borrows v HM Coroner for Preston (McManus Interested Party)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : borrows-v-hm-coroner-for-preston-mcmanus-interested-party
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 15, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87329

(Queen's Bench Division; Cranston J; 15 May 2008)

In releasing a body to a family member the coroner would, if there were no executor or administrator, simply apply the order of priority set out Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 SI 2024, r 22; however, if someone lower in that order of priority, or not there at all, advanced a claim to determine the mode and place of disposal of the body, even where other members of the family objected, the coroner would need to consider that claim. Mediation would often resolve the issue, but if a compromise was not possible, coroners needed to make a decision. In exercising the discretion to vary the order of priority, under Supreme Court Act 1981, s 116, the first stage was to identify any special circumstances, including the wishes of the deceased. The second stage was to decide whether any such special circumstances justified a variation of the order of priority, in that they made it necessary or expedient for the court to vary the priority. Special circumstances in this case included the mother's long-term drug addiction, which made her incapable of handling the funeral arrangements, the child's expressed wish to be cremated; the mother's willingness until the eve of the trial to override those clear wishes; the child's strong bond with the relatives who had cared for him for many years and who had become his psychological parents; and the child's contacts within his local community. It was necessary for the mother's rights to be displaced; her drug addiction was determinative, because it meant that she was incapable of assuming the responsibility.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from