Exhumations

The petitioner's father's body had been buried in a triple depth grave in 1976. In 1999 the cremated remains of the petitioner's grandfather had been buried in the same grave at a depth of two feet. The petitioner's mother died and before her death she had expressed a wish for a coffin burial in the same grave as her husband, but this could not be achieved without disturbing the cremated remains in the grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the cremated remains to be exhumed and reinterred at the head of the grave, in order to allow the burial of the petitioner's mother's body with that of her husband.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the exhumation of the body of the petitioner's father, who died in 1992, in order that the body might be cremated and the ashes taken to Italy to be interred with the cremated remains of the petitioner's mother, who died in 2015, in a family grave in the village where the petitioners' parents had been brought up and were married.

A husband and wife sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of the wife's father ("the deceased"), who died in 1982, from the consecrated part of Gravesend Cemetery with a view to the remains being scattered in the Thames View Crematorium along with the cremated remains of the deceased's late wife, who had recently died. The Chancellor could find no special circumstance which would justify him in granting a faculty.

When his mother's body was interred in the cemetery in 1989, the petitioner obtained rights of burial for himself and his wife in the adjoining plot. In 2018, the burial authority dug a grave in the plot reserved by the petitioner. The burial authority's mistake was only discovered on the morning of the intended burial. Rather than insist that the burial authority stopped the funeral, the petitioner, out of compassion for the family concerned, allowed the burial to take place in the plot he had reserved. The petitioner then applied for a faculty to have his mother's body exhumed with a view to reinterment in a burial chamber on the petitioner's farm land, the chamber being a secure structure, and capable of accommodating the bodies of the petitioner and his wife after their deaths. It would then be completely sealed by the family. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances to justify him granting a faculty as requested.

The petitioners applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of their father's ashes and reinterment in the plot containing the ashes of their mother. The father had died in 2006. His ashes had been buried in the cemetery and a memorial placed over the plot. Space was left for the name of the mother on the memorial. When the mother died in 2017, it was discovered that the father's ashes had been buried only two feet deep, so it was not possible to inter a further casket of ashes in the same plot. The petitioners therefore had their mother's ashes buried at double depth in a nearby plot and applied for a faculty to move their father's ashes to the same plot. The Chancellor decided that this was a case where he could exercise his discretion in allowing exhumation and reinterment, on the basis that the burial authority had made a mistake by failing to make it clear that a further burial in the first plot would not be possible.

The peitioner wished to have the body of her husband exhumed from the cemetery and reinterred in a Roman Catholic cemetery (both were Roman Catholics). She claimed that there had been a mistake in the burial, as the plot was unsuitable, being close to the edge of a five foot drop and it would not support a memorial. The Chancellor stated that this was not a case of 'mistake', so as to justify the grant of a faculty, but he nevertheless granted a faculty for exhumation on the basis of the petitioner not having been made aware of the significance of consecration in accordance with the rites of the Church of England.

The burial authority applied for a faculty for exhumation and reinterment. Owing to a mistake by the authority, some cremated remains had been interred in a plot reserved for someone else, rather than in the plot reserved for the deceased. The Chancellor granted a faculty, following the guidance in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299 that, "Sometimes genuine mistakes do occur, for example, a burial may take place in the wrong burial plot in a cemetery or in a space reserved for someone else in a churchyard. In such cases it may be those responsible for the cemetery or churchyard who apply for a faculty to exhume the remains from the wrong burial plot or grave. Faculties can in these circumstances readily be granted ..."

The petitioner wished to transfer the mortal remains of his mother from a columbarium niche in a consecrated area of Hampton Cemetery in London to the Isle of Wight, where the petitioner and some other members of the family now lived, for re-interment in a place as yet unidentified, as they felt unable to clean the memorial to the deceased, in view of the distance. The Chancellor found no exceptional reasons which would justify the grant of a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of his mother moved from one consecrated plot in the cemetery to another consecrated plot in the same cemetery. The reason given for the proposed move was that, due to the proximity of skips to accommodate rubbish, the area next to the grave had become the subject of persistent fly-tipping. The Chancellor was satisfied that photographs of the area indicated "a wholly disrespectful and disgraceful state of affairs." He therefore granted a faculty for exhumatin and reinterment.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of his parents exhumed from a double plot in the consecrated section of Heaton Cemetery and reinterred in another plot in the same consecrated area. The petitioner's reason for the application was that the plot was situated under a tree where birds regularly roosted, and the memorial over the plot had been so affected by bird faeces that it had become unsightly, unhygienic and potentially hazardous to the health of those visiting the grave, placing flowers on it or trying to clean the memorial. The Chancellor determined that the circumstances were sufficiently special to make an exception to the norm of permanence of burial. He therefore granted a faculty.