Exhumations

The petitioners applied for the temporary exhumation of the cremated remains of their brother from their father's grave, so that their mother could be buried in the same grave and the brother's cremated remains then returned to the grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner's daughter died, whilst still a child, in 2011. The petitioner and her husband had wanted a triple depth grave for their only child and themselves, but a triple depth grave was not possible because of the ground conditions The petitioner's husband died in 2020 and was buried in a grave about 400 yards away in the same cemetery. The petitioner now wished to have the remains of her daughter exhumed and reinterred in her husband's grave, next to which the petitioner had already reserved a grave for herself. The Chancellor decided that "exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation do exist in this case. The establishment of what is in effect a family grave will be expressive of family unity, which should be encouraged."

The petitioner's father died on 17 September 2020 and his remains were buried in a consecrated double depth grave in the cemetery, it being intended that in due time the petitioner's mother's remains should be buried in the same grave. The petitioner's mother died in September 2021 and shortly before that a very large memorial, which did not comply with the cemetery regulations, was erected on an adjacent plot. The family felt that the adjacent memorial was so large that it seriously overshadowed the grave of the petitioner's father. It was therefore decided to bury the petitioner's mother's remains in another double depth plot in the same cemetery and to seek permission to move the petitioner's father's remains to his wife's grave. The Chancellor considered that the family's concern was reasonable in the circumstances and, because the uncertainty as to whether or when the offending memorial could be modified or removed was likely to cause prolonged anxiety to the family, he decided to avoid any further distress by granting a faculty for exhumation and reinterment of the petitioner's father's remains.

The petitioner applied for a faculty for the exhumation of the remains of her mother, interred in Mortlake Cemetery in 1978, and for reinterment in a cemetery in the USA, near to where the petitioner lived. The Petitioner was the deceased's only surviving child and had lived in the USA since 1953. The Petitioner's children and their families all lived near to her  and an area in the cemetery near to her home had been reserved for the burial of members of her family, where one of her daughters was already buried. After considering the principles laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the Deputy Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances allowing her to grant a faculty for exhumation, so that all the members of the family could be buried together in the same cemetery.

In January 1995 the cremated remains of Harold Bristeir were interred in plot 15000 in the cemetery. It was the intention at the time that when his wife Joan Bristier died, her remains would be interred in the same plot. In March 1995, Mrs. Bristeir's brothers, Michael and Roland Durber reserved rights of burial in the adjacent plot 14999. When Roland died in 2011, his remains were interred in plot 15000, owing to a mistake by the burial authority. This mistake came to light in 2017, when Mrs. Bristeir died, and the error was only discovered on the day before her funeral. In the circumstances, Mrs. Bristeir's daughter reluctantly agreed for her mother's ashes going in plot 14999. However, she later regretted that decision in haste and applied for the exhumation of her mother's ashes and Roland's ashes and their reinterment in the correct plots. The Chancellor found that, owing to the mistake by the burial authority, he was justified in allowing the two exhumations and reinterments.

A baby had died about an hour after its birth and the parents arranged for it to be buried in Northfleet Cemetery. They afterwards regretted their hasty decision to have the baby buried. The mother's mental health, supported by medical evidence, had suffered. She wished to have the body exhumed and cremated, with the intention of retaining the cremated remains at home until she had recovered from her grief. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions that the cremated remains should be interred in consecrated ground within 10 years, and until interment the cremated remains should be retained in a respectful and careful manner.

The petitioner wished to have the body of her 15 year old daughter, who had committed suicide in 2018, exhumed and cremated. The family had been finding life difficult in Durham following the family tragedy. They wished to move to Canada, where they had relatives, and to take the petitioner's daughter's remains with them, where they could be interred. The Chancellor, applying the principles laid down in the Court of Arches decision in  Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, determined that the petitioner had failed to prove that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation.

In 1997 the deceased had requested the reservation of the grave at the foot of the grave of her late husband. Owing to an administrative mistake the wrong plot number was allocated, but the deceased did not realise that the grave number was incorrect. At the funeral, the family realised that the grave for the deceased had been dug in the wrong place, but felt unable to do other than proceed with the funeral. They subsequently sought a faculty for exhumation and reinterment in the intended grave. The Chancellor was satisfied that a genuine mistake had been made, which could be regarded as an exception to the presumption of permanence of burial. He therefore granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment, in order to correct the error.

The petitioner wished to exhume the remains of her mother-in-law ("the deceased") from Peel Cemetery and reinter them in a private chapel called The Chantry, at Crogga, where the remains of the deceased's son and the petitioner's husband were laid. The petitioner's husband was a prominent member of the Roman Catholic community in the island. The Vicar General decided that this was an appropriate exceptional circumstance justifying a departure from the principle of permanence of burial as expressed in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299. He therefore granted a faculty. However, under Isle of Man law remains could be exhumed and reburied only if moved from one piece of consecrated land to another piece of consecrated land (that is land consecrated according to the Anglican tradition), but the Chantry was not so consecrated. Therefore, in addition to the faculty, the petitioner would need to obtain the consent of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture.

A Faculty was granted for exhumation. The judgment contains a lengthy discussion as to what may amount to “exceptional circumstances” to justify exhumation.