The recent case of Read v Hoarean [2024] EWHC 3274 (Ch) demonstrates how the Court will deal with a dispute over the disposal of a body and appointment of an Administrator.
Theadore William Read died in August 2024 at only 18 years old. Theadore did not leave a Will which meant he died intestate.
Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules lists an order for priority as to who may apply for a grant of Letters of Administration in an intestacy. Theadore’s parents were equally entitled to be appointed as Administrator of his estate.
The Administrator would be responsible for managing Theadore’s estate, collecting assets and paying liabilities, but also arranging his funeral and disposing of his body.
Theadore’s parents had been separated for many years and there had been hostile litigation around Theadore’s care – with Theadore being removed from his mother’s care when he was 8 years old.
Both parents agreed that Theadore should be cremated but they disagreed as to what should happen to his ashes. This disagreement led to Theadore’s mother refusing to release his body to the funeral director (whose appointment she also disagreed with).
An application was made by Theadore’s father for the court to determine which parent should be responsible for the disposal of Theadore’s body and what should happen to his ashes.
His father wanted the ashes to be scattered on Dartmoor as he stated this was somewhere Theadore often visited and felt at peace. Theadore’s mother wanted the ashes to be divided equally between her and Theadore’s father. She wanted her portion of the ashes to be interred within her family’s grave and his father’s portion of the ashes could then be scattered.
Witness evidence was provided by both parents alongside close family and friends of Theadore; all expressing what they believed would have been Theadore’s wishes.
It is important to note that Theadore had not yet been cremated, as whoever signs the cremation authority is entitled to possession of the ashes and then acts as Trustee of those ashes. As Trustee they must consider the thoughts and feelings of close family and friends when deciding how the ashes are dealt with.
In this case, the Court was tasked with determining who should be appointed as Administrator of Theadore’s estate and in turn, who should be responsible for his cremation arrangements and ashes disposal.
The Court is clear that the overriding consideration is that a body should be disposed of with proper respect and decency and without delay.
In this case, the Court made it clear that alongside the overriding consideration, it will consider:
Where there is a dispute as to who should act as Administrator in an estate, the Court has power under Section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to “pass over” those persons with highest entitlement to take out a Grant of Letters of Administration and appoint someone else.
The Court held that Theadore spent most of his life living in Caversham, therefore, his funeral should take place there. Based on the evidence produced to the Court, it was held that Theadore’s ashes should be scattered at Dartmoor.
The Court passed over Theadore’s mother and ordered that a Grant of Letters of Administration should be granted to only Theadore’s father. However, it was held that his mother should be kept informed of all funeral arrangements and allowed some time with Theadore’s body prior to cremation.
Theadore’s mother requested permission to appeal but this was denied as there was no real prospect of success.
Disputes about ashes are always emotionally charged and can be difficult to resolve. Parties are always advised to do everything possible to reach a compromise and agree something. If that is not possible then expert advice should be sought as soon as possible.
If you are in a dispute as to who should act as Administrator in an estate or are in dispute as to the disposal of ashes, please click here to contact our Contentious Trusts and Probate team for advice.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
