Bains v Arsalan and another [2026] EWHC 1597 (Fam)

The case of Bains v Arsalan and Another [2026] EWHC 1597 (Fam) sheds light on the sensitive and emotional legal disputes that can arise over burial arrangements when family members disagree. It highlights how courts approach these situations, balancing the wishes of the family with the unique circumstances of the deceased’s life.

When disagreements arise over funeral arrangements, the court’s role is to decide who has the authority to make these decisions. This is done through a careful balancing of factors, such as the deceased’s relationships, cultural and religious background, and the reasonable wishes of the family.

The law governing these disputes often refers to Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (NCPR), which sets out who has priority to administer the estate of someone who has died without a will. However, courts have the discretion to change this order if there are special circumstances. For example, they can give decision-making authority to someone lower on the priority list, or even to someone outside the family, if it is necessary to resolve the dispute fairly.

The Dispute in Bains v Arsalan

In this case, the disagreement was between the deceased’s mother, who had converted to Islam and wanted an Islamic burial, and the paternal family, who wanted a Sikh funeral. The court had to consider the deceased’s religious and cultural identity, as well as the relationships they had with both sides of the family. The central issue was whether a parent who has unlawfully killed their child can still rely on that legal priority.

The paternal grandmother argued that the answer should be no because of the “forfeiture rule”. This longstanding legal principle, now reflected in the Forfeiture Act 1982, prevents a person from benefiting from their own wrongdoing. In simple terms, someone should not gain a legal advantage as a result of unlawfully killing another person. The court therefore had to decide whether the mother’s conviction prevented her from obtaining the grant of administration that would give her authority over the funeral arrangements.

The mother’s conversion to Islam and her desire for an Islamic burial were weighed against the paternal family’s connection to the deceased and their wish for a Sikh funeral. The court’s task was not to decide the details of the burial itself, such as the location or method, but to determine who should have the authority to make these decisions.

The court carefully considered the religious and cultural significance of the burial arrangements proposed by both sides. It also took into account the genuine beliefs and intentions of the family members involved. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case, including the deceased’s upbringing, their relationships and the circumstances of their life.

The court also used its power to issue an injunction, which temporarily stopped any burial arrangements from going ahead until the dispute was resolved. This ensured that the deceased’s body was preserved while the court worked to reach a fair decision.

The Key Factors that the Court Considered

Religious and Cultural Identity of the Deceased: The court examined the deceased’s upbringing and the influence of both Sikh and Islamic traditions in their life. While the mother’s conversion to Islam was significant, the court also considered the deceased’s paternal family’s cultural and religious ties.

The Mother’s Role and Wishes: As the deceased’s mother, her wishes carried significant weight. Her conversion to Islam and her desire for an Islamic burial reflected her deeply held beliefs, which the court acknowledged as genuine and devout.

The Paternal Family’s Connection: The paternal family’s longstanding relationship with the deceased and their desire for a Sikh funeral were also important considerations. The court evaluated the strength of these connections and the sincerity of their wishes.

The Deceased’s Own Wishes (if known): While there was no direct evidence of the deceased’s specific wishes regarding their burial, the court considered any indirect indications of their preferences based on their life and relationships.

Practical and Procedural Considerations: The court issued an injunction to temporarily halt any burial arrangements, ensuring that the deceased’s body remained preserved while the dispute was resolved. This procedural step allowed the court to deliberate without the risk of irreversible actions being taken.

The Decision

 Mr Justice Peel agreed with the paternal grandmother. The court held that, because of the operation of the forfeiture rule, Harleen’s mother was not entitled to benefit from Harleen’s estate and was therefore not entitled to apply for or receive a grant of administration under the usual probate rules.

The judge also noted that the court has the power under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to depart from the normal order of priority where special circumstances make it necessary or expedient to do so. Even if the forfeiture argument had been wrong, the judge considered that the mother’s conviction for killing Harleen, together with the need to make appropriate funeral arrangements, amounted to special circumstances justifying the appointment of the paternal grandmother.

As a result, letters of administration were granted to the paternal grandmother, enabling her to arrange Harleen’s funeral.

Why This Case Matters

From a legal perspective, the judgment provides welcome clarity. It confirms that a person convicted of causing a death cannot expect to rely on their family relationship alone to control what happens after that death. The courts will intervene where necessary to ensure that funeral arrangements are made by an appropriate person and in a way that reflects the deceased’s circumstances and interests.

The case of Bains v Arsalan is a reminder of how complex and emotional burial disputes can be. It shows how courts strive to handle these cases with care, focusing on the unique details of each situation. By balancing the interests of the family and respecting the dignity of the deceased, the court aims to reach a fair outcome that takes everyone’s concerns into account.

This case also highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework for burial disputes and the court’s ability to adapt its approach to the specific circumstances of each case. It’s a poignant example of how the law can help resolve deeply personal and sensitive conflicts.