Exhumations

The petitioner’s parents both originated from Hong Kong, but had spent their married life in Newark. After the petitioner’s mother had died, her father moved back to Hong Kong. He died there and was buried in Tai Po in 2011, and it was said that his dying wish was for his wife’s remains to be exhumed and cremated and for the ashes to be interred in his gave in Tai Po. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. The petitioner’s mother’s remains had been buried for thirty years and exhumation would be likely to be difficult due to the effects of decay. Moreover, the normal presumption of permanence of burial applied, unless there were sufficient exceptional circumstance to justify exhumation. In this case there were no circumstances to merit exhumation. The family had fulfilled their duty to their father by making the petition, but for the reasons given the petition must be refused.

The Chancellor granted a faculty permitting the exhumation of Derek Harold Wilkinson’s cremated remains from Newbold Verdon Cemetery so that they could be reinterred with those of his late wife, Rosemary Wilkinson, in the same grave. Mr Wilkinson was buried in 2019 in his parents’ grave with his wife’s consent. After Mrs Wilkinson’s death in 2025, their son discovered a 2016 signed letter expressing his parents’ joint wish that their cremated remains be kept until they could be reunited and interred together in the cemetery’s Garden of Remembrance. The court accepted that Mrs Wilkinson’s early dementia at the time of her husband’s burial may explain why those wishes were not followed. Applying Re Blagdon Cemetery and related authority, the Chancellor held that the combination of the couple’s clear prior written wishes, Mrs Wilkinson’s cognitive decline, prompt action upon discovery of the letter, unanimous family support, and the limited disturbance involved constituted exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the presumption of permanence in Christian burial.

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.

Mr and Mrs Newsome petitioned for a faculty permitting the exhumation of their son Adam’s remains, buried in 2007 at Ormskirk Parish Churchyard, and re-interment in West Lancashire Cemetery. Adam died aged 19 after suffering from cancer. The petitioners argued that the churchyard environment had deteriorated. They reported antisocial behaviour, drug paraphernalia, and intimidation from groups of youths, which made visiting the grave distressing and unsafe. They also described maintenance issues, including a sunken and waterlogged grave, and wished ultimately to be buried together with their son in a new family plot elsewhere. The Chancellor applied the established principles governing exhumation, particularly those in Re Blagdon Cemetery and Re Christchurch Alsager, which emphasise the presumption of permanence of Christian burial and require exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation. Although expressing sympathy for the family, the Chancellor held that distress caused by antisocial behaviour or dissatisfaction with the churchyard environment does not constitute exceptional circumstances. Granting the petition could create a precedent for similar applications. Accordingly, the petition for exhumation was refused, though the court suggested that improvements to churchyard management might address the concerns raised.

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.

The Petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her late mother from one plot in the consecrated area of the cemetery and reinter them in another consecrated plot in the same cemetery. The Petitioner's father had died in 2006 and had been buried in the cemetery. In 2007 the Petitioner purchased a plot for her mother near to her father's plot, and when her mother died in 2010 the Petitioner arranged for her mother's remains to be buried in the separate plot which she had purchased, even though her mother had expressed a wish, shortly before she died, to be buried with her husband. The Petitioner subsequently felt guilty at not having carried out her mother's wishes and now wished to have her mother's remains interred with her father's.The Deputy Chancellor decided that there were no special circumstances within the guidelines laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] to justify him in granting a faculty.