Judgment Search


Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 20 January 2022

Index by Dioceses of 2021 judgments on this web site.



The petitioner's father had lived in Worcestershire for a short time before his death in 1989. The petitioner's late brother, a priest, had decided as a temporary measure to have his father's ashes interred at Fairfield, with a view to the ashes being reinterred in Great Amwell in Hertfordshire with the ashes of his mother after her death, which in fact occurred in 2011. The ashes of both parents were to be interred in a family grave at Great Amwell. Most of the family lived in or near Great Amwell, and the petitioner's father had lived in a cottage next to the churchyard. The Deputy Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the exhumation and reinterment in the family grave.

The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the cremated remains of his father from the churchyard and reinterment in the cremated remains section of a nearby cemetery. The reason given was that the deceased's wife had died recently and she had wanted her cremated remains to be interred in the cemetery. The petitioner wished to unite the cremated remains of his father with the cremated remains of his mother in the same grave. In the light of the guidance in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the Deputy Chancellor determined that there were no exceptional reasons to justify the grant of a faculty for the exhumation of the deceased’s remains.

In 1980, the petitioner's late father's ashes were interred in a cemetery in Loughborough. In 1985, the ashes were exhumed and reinterred in the churchyard at East Leake. The petitioner now wished to have his father's ashes re-exhumed and reinterred in another part of the churchyard, with the ashes of the petitioner's mother, who had recently died. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional factors to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation. The canopy of a cypress tree had grown over the grave, leaving only one metre clearance above the grave; the area around the grave was overgrown; and the grave was likely to be affected by the tree's roots.

The petitioner wished to have her late husband's cremated remains exhumed and reinterred in Scotland, on a property that the deceased had acquired in 1962. Four relatives and a friend of the deceased objected. They contended that the petitioner did not like them putting floral tributes and cards on the grave and had been observed removing flowers and cards, and that the petitioner's motive for moving the remains to Scotland was to put them where the objectors would find it difficult to put tributes on the deceased's grave. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment and urged restraint on both sides, advising the objectors not to put cards on the grave and expressing the hope that the petitioner would not to remove flowers placed by the objectors.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation. The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his daughter (who had died in 2007 aged 45) from Northolt churchyard and have the ashes scattered at Breakspear Crematorium. Applying the guidance given in the 2001 decision of the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor did not consider that the reasons given by the petitioner for exhumation - that the petitioner's daughter's grave was neglected, and that the family had moved to near the Breakspear Crematorium, where the petitioner and his wife intended to have their own ashes scattered in due course - were not sufficiently exceptional as to justify a departure from the general rule that permanence of burial in consecrated ground should be regarded as the norm. Also, if exhumation were allowed, the ashes would not be reinterred in consecrated ground.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to permit the opening of a grave and the opening of a casket, in order to permit the petitioners' mother's wedding ring to be placed with the ashes of the petitioners' parents, which had been interred six weeks previously.

The cremated remains of a member of the family concerned in this matter had recently been interred in her parents' grave. The interment had been arranged by certain members of the family, who did not discuss the location of the interment with other members of the family, who, as it turned out, objected to the last deceased being interred in her parents' grave, and they applied for a faculty for exhumation. The Chancellor ruled that the interment should not have taken place in the parents' grave without the agreement of all of the next of kin, and accordingly granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment elsewhere.

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her mother and reinter them in the same churchyard with the remains of her father. It had been intended that the plot into which the petitioner's mother's remains had been interred should have been a double grave, but when the petitioner's father died it was found to be impossible to add the father's remains to the grave, due to insufficient depth. Also, the grave could not be enlarged due to concrete obstructions. Therefore the petitioner's father's remains had to be put in a nearby grave. The Chancellor considered that a mistake had been made, in that those digging the mother's grave should have been aware that a double plot was required and that the plot itself was not suitable for a double interment. He therefore granted a faculty of the exhumation of the mother's remains and their reinterment in the grave of her husband.

Faculty for exhumation granted, due to exceptional circumstances (following guidance in Re Blagdon), namely, medical reasons.

Faculty granted for the exhumation of cremated remains and their reinterment in a family grave in the nearby cemetery, even though the remains had not been interred in a casket, but poured into a hole in the ground.