The case of Godwin v Godwin [2026] EWHC 923 (Ch) is the latest case about a burial dispute. When making a decision, the court carefully considered the details of the funeral arrangements, such as how invitations to the funeral should be sent out and whether the guests to the funeral would be able to understand it if it was conducted in a different language.
Godwin v Godwin [2026] EWHC 923 (Ch)
Background
Michael Godwin died on 5 November 2025 and had three sons – one of them is the Claimant, i.e. William Godwin, and another one of them is the Defendant, i.e. Jason Godwin. His body had been at the mortuary of a Leeds undertaker since 25 November 2025.
Michael made his home in France for at least 30 years, but he never integrated into French life. He had a will dated 25 April 2003 appointing William as the sole executor and his last wish was for his body to be taken and interred in the plot at the cemetery in France with Artlette Thomas, who had been Michael’s partner until around 2010.
Michael came to England and was admitted to hospital in August 2025 and he remained there until he died.
William arranged cremation for December 2025 but did not inform Jason. This claim was brought in January 2026 to determine how Michael’s body should be disposed of.
Decision
The court appointed William as administrator of the estate limited to disposal of Michael’s body. The court also ordered that his body be buried (and not cremated) in England on the following basis:-
- The focus should be on ensuring that the deceased’s body was disposed of with all proper respect and decency and without any unnecessary delay;
- The deceased’s own wishes were a weighty factor but are not determinative – he wanted a Christian funeral and to be buried;
- It was accepted that the deceased was most closely associated with France but had no connection to the country beyond Artlette;
- The deceased would have been content for his body to be disposed of in France, but this was based on his expectation that Artlette would be buried nearby. The court could not confirm that Artlette would ever be buried in that cemetery as she might have already died and been buried elsewhere or her circumstances/plans might have changed;
- It is unlikely anyone would visit the deceased’s grave if buried in France as no one in the family has ever had any connection with the place in France;
- It was possible that a funeral in France would lose some of its meaning or value if none of the likely mourners could speak French and the service had to be translated; and
- Repatriation to France would extend the timeframe for disposal by about five weeks, which is long given his body’s condition.
How can we help
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning a burial dispute or a similar subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.