Disagreement Over Funeral Arrangements Uk

If the deceased has made a will, the executor takes precedence over the immediate family of the deceased. For example, in Murdoch v. Rhind40, the executor prevented the deceased`s wife from cremating her husband`s remains (to fulfill the deceased`s desire to be buried in the family burial place), while in Grandison v Nembhard41, the executor was able to repatriate the deceased`s remains to his native Jamaica (again, according to the wishes of the deceased), despite the objections of the only daughter of the deceased who wanted to bury her father in England. The authority of the executor is not known and the right to possession of the deceased`s remains may be difficult for family members to accept if the executor is not related to the deceased.42 Naturally, the choice of executor may be based on the fact that that person complied with the funeral instructions of the deceased.43 44 An executor is not required to follow up on the deceased`s instructions;45 As a person legitimately entitled to possess the body, it is up to him to decide on the nature and place of disposal.46 This can sometimes lead to controversial results. For example, if the deceased is survived by a spouse, but another party, such as his cousin, designates in a will as executor, the spouse of the deceased has no say in the burial or order on the body. If the executor and the spouse do not reach an agreement, the decision of the executor takes precedence. But what happens if there is a dispute over the validity of the will of the deceased who appoints the executor or if there is disagreement between PRs? In such cases, the parties may decide before the court who is empowered to rule. This is what happened recently in the case of Lina Jakimaviciute V (1) HM Coroner for Westminster (2) Rasa Stanevicience [2019], in which the court had to determine which of the deceased`s two daughters was entitled to possession of her mother`s body. Specific funeral regimes can punish the deceased for the physical or emotional damage they have caused to other people in life. At Holtham v Arnold,25 the deceased`s partner wanted to bury him according to his wishes; The wife of the deceased insisted on cremation, although the deceased left her and her six children six years ago.26 Similarly, Betty Brannam is against Edward Robeson Funeral Home,27 in which the deceased`s alienated wife wanted to bury her husband`s remains, contrary to a provision in the deceased`s will, that he is cremated and the ashes of his long-time companion, 28 Due to nature In the event of a dispute over funeral arrangements, it is important to act quickly to resolve the problems. The general rule is that the person appointed as executor in the will of the deceased, or the person entitled to act as a personal representative if no will has been made, is the person entitled to dispose of the body. Therefore, regardless of the wishes of other family members, there is little that can be done to annul it, unless the executor acts completely inappropriately.

Ashley J. in Meier v Bell128 agrees with this statement and stressed the need to respect the legal principles established in the resolution of funeral disputes; The courts cannot deviate from it for the sole purpose of meeting competing demands, whether “for religious, cultural or other reasons”.129 As we are forced to spend more time at home, we discover more about our own property and more about our neighbors. For many, our relationships with our neighbors have improved, as we are committed to helping those we can to clear up the lonely. Cultural values can create similar types of litigation. Here too, problems arise when the deceased have rejected cultural traditions in life, but family members insist on certain funeral rites for re-establishing these ties after death – a problem that has arisen in many Australian cases with members of the Aboriginal community. . . .