Disputes Over Funeral Arrangements

It is often the case that disputes following an individual’s death revolve around the distribution of the estate. But on the rare occasion, disputes may arise as to the deceased’s funeral arrangements.

Funeral wishes are generally covered in an individual’s Will or through the use of a pre-paid funeral plan. As such, disputes only tend to arise where the deceased died intestate or where the deceased was a minor and therefore unable to make a Will.

The power to decide on funeral arrangements lays with the executor or administrator of the estate. Where there is no executor or administrator, the Court has the power to appoint one to decide on the funeral arrangements where an agreement cannot otherwise be made.

Disputes over funeral arrangements – Case law

Re JS (Disposal of Body)

The case of Re JS (Disposal of Body), relating to the burial arrangements of a child, held that such decisions can be made under the Senior Courts Act 1981 or under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

It is difficult to apply this case when dealing with a deceased’s arrangements however, as this case involved a particular set of circumstances where the child’s funeral arrangements were disputed whilst the child remained alive, although their death was imminent.

ND v LD

A more recent and somewhat more typical case is ND v LD.

Whilst this case again involved an unusual set of facts, it confirms that the decision made in Re JS (Disposal of Body) applies to a deceased’s estate and sets out what happens when there are two valid applicants that could be an administrator.

It also demonstrated the Court’s reluctance to make more personal decisions and their preference to merely to give one party the ultimate decision.

ND v LD was also a dispute between a mother and father as to their child’s burial arrangements. The facts of the case are as follows.

The mother and father of the child split shortly after the child was born. The mother and the child moved away from the father, which made it difficult and impractical for the father to keep in contact. The mother commenced a new relationship and her new partner murdered the child who was only aged 22 months. The partner was convicted for murder and the mother convicted for causing or allowing a child to die. A dispute between burial arrangements then arose between the mother and father.

On the face of it, many would assume the funeral arrangements would be at the mother’s discretion as she was the primary carer and the father had little to no contact with the child since the mother moved away. Under the rules of intestacy however, both parents had an equal right to apply to act as an administrator for the child. The Court held that under s.116 of the Senior Courts Act, they had the power to choose an administrator. The Court therefore appointed the father as sole administrator who was able to go on and decide on the funeral arrangements. The decision was partly formed on the basis that it would be more practical for the father to act as administrator as the mother was imprisoned following her conviction.

The Court’s decision not to decide on the ultimate administration shows their reluctance to involve themselves with personal administration issues. It however shows that they have jurisdiction to make such decisions and allows for cases regarding funeral arrangements to be brought to Court.