Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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