The Court’s Stance On Burial Disputes

In a previous blog, we reviewed the position in ownership of a deceased’s body where it is noted that the Court are often reluctant to decide on matters relating to the ownership and burial arrangements of a deceased person. This issue was again put before the Court in the recent case of Ganoun v Joshi.

Ganoun v Joshi

Case background

In this case, a dispute arose between the mother and the widow of the deceased concerning the place of burial and the name and date of birth to be used. As discussed in our previous blog, disputes over a deceased’s burial are fairly common however, a disagreement over the name and date of birth to be used is almost unheard of. Ordinarily, an individual’s name and date of birth will be given as a fact which prevents the possibility of a dispute arising.

The deceased in this case originated from Algeria where his mother and siblings remained. The deceased had moved to England in 2004 and remained there for the 15 years prior to his death. Mrs Ganoun, the deceased’s mother, advised that the deceased’s real name was different to the name used in England and his date of birth meant he was in fact five years older than he claimed to have been. Ms Joshi, the deceased widow, of course disputed this as she had always known the deceased’s personal information to be what he had told her. Mrs Ganoun was able to produce Algerian documents in support of her position, which Ms Johsi suspected to have been tampered with. The Court noted that the deceased had reason to use a fake date of birth as, on his entry to England, he would have been classed as a minor and therefore more likely to have been allowed to stay.

The need for a declaration to be made as to the deceased’s correct name was important for Mrs Ganoun and her family in order to obtain a Visa to visit the deceased current place of burial. Mrs Ganoun brought it to the Court’s attention that on the event her and her family apply for a Visa in respect of the deceased’s burial, she will need to evidence the deceased was family, which would be very difficult when all their evidence does not correctly correlate with the deceased. The Court had no doubt that the deceased was the same person identified by Mrs Ganoun and therefore made a declaration confirming the deceased’s real name and date of birth.

As regards to the burial, Mrs Ganoun wished her son to be buried in Algeria, whilst Ms Joshi wanted the deceased to be buried in England where he had lived for the last 15 years. Before Mrs Ganoun’s application to Court was heard, the deceased was buried in England and therefore the application was to now have the deceased exhumed so a burial in Algeria could be arranged on the basis the England burial was not ‘decent’.

The Court was again reluctant to make a decision in respect of the deceased’s burial arrangements and would not comment on whether the burial was ‘decent’. An application to have a body exhumed must be made before the secretary of state and accordingly, the Court left Mrs Ganoun to take this matter up further with the secretary of state. The Court did note that Ms Joshi, as surviving spouse, would take priority in deciding the place of burial over other family members.

The Court also identified that in such disputes it may appear appropriate to replace the executor dealing with the estate. This case did not however call for such action to be taken by the Court.