Exhumations

The petitioner wished to have the remains of her father ("the deceased") exhumed from the grave immediately next to the grave of his second wife and reinterred in the grave of the deceased's first wife, which grave also contained the remains of the deceased's parents, in order that a new memorial bearing the names of all four members of the family could then be put on the grave. The Chancellor ruled that there were no special circumstances which would justify the grant of a faculty. It appeared that before his death the deceased believed that there was no room for him to be buried in the same grave as his first wife and parents and was content to be buried elsewhere in the churchyard. His second wife died shortly after the deceased from a terminal illness, and it was assumed that they would naturally wish to be buried together after 28 years' marriage. Moreover, 25 years had passed since the deceased's death, and there was no explanation as to why an application had not been made earlier.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of his father exhumed from one plot in the cemetery and reinterred in another plot with the cremated remains of his recently deceased mother. The reasons given for the application were: (1) the petitioner's father's burial plot was close to the entrance of the cemetery, and when members of the family visited the plot, all other people visiting the cemetery would be passing by them; (2) there was no convenient seat at which to sit and reflect; and (3) the plot was next to a gully cover. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner genuinely found the location of the plot unsuitable, but he could not find any exceptional reason to justify exhumation.

The petitioner's husband's cremated remains had been interred in the cemetery at Stoke by Clare in 2001. Since that time, the petitioner had moved to Haverhill. By reason of her age and cuts in local transport, the petitioner was now finding it difficult to visit her husband's grave, and she wished to have his remains exhumed and reinterred in Haverhill Cemetery. The Chancellor was unable to grant a faculty, as he found that the circumstances did not provide an exception such as the law required him to find before permitting an exhumation.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the remains of the petitioner's father and reinterment after the removal of some jewellery, which, owing to a mistake by the funeral directors, had been included in the interment, contrary to the wishes of the family.

The petitioner's mother's (a Belgian Roman Catholic) had been buried in an unconsecrated part of Streatham Park Cemetery. The petitioner's father had been buried in a consecrated part of the cemetery, and in the same grave as the petiitoner's father's still-born sister. The father's interment had been arranged by the petitioner's late grandparents. The petitioner believed that his father had always wanted to be buried with his mother, so that the grandparents had failed to carry out the wishes of the father. Also, the petitioner was unhappy about the lack of maintenance of the area in which the graves were situated. The petitioner proposed that the remains of his parents should be exhumed and reinterred together in the town in Belgium where his parents had been married, and where they had relatives. The Chancellor agreed to the exhumation of the father's remains (the exhumation of the mother's remains from unconsecrated ground would reqire a Home Office licence) and reinterment in the Belgian cemetery. The Chancellor refused to grant an additional request of the petitioner to have the remains of his father's still-born sister exhumed and reinterred in a cemetery at Maidstone, where the petitioner's grandparents were interred in separate graves.

By mistake, the body of a lady was interred in the wrong grave, namely, in a grave reserved for a married couple, of whom the wife's body had already been interred in the grave. The mistake only came to light when the husband who had reserved the grave died and arrangements were made for his interment with the remains of his wife. The husband's remains were temporarily interred in an unconsecrated grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the exhumation of the remains of the lady buried in the wrong grave, in order that they could be transferred to the grave where they should have been buried, so that the remains of the man could be exhumed and reinterred with the remains of his wife.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the exhumation of cremated remains, so that they could be reinterred in the same grave at a greater depth, in order to allow the interment above them of the cremated remains of another member of the family.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for an exhumation and reinterment in circumstances where, owing to an administrative error, a deceased's remains had been buried in the wrong grave.

The petitioner's brother had died, aged 5, in 1970 and his remains were interred in a consecrated part of Streatham Park Cemetery. It had been the hope of the petitioner's parents that they would be able to be buried next to their son. The petitioner's mother having recently died, it was discovered that the she could not be buried next to her son. The petitioner therefore sought a faculty to have her brother's remains exhumed and the grave dug deeper to allow the reinterment of her brother's remains, the interment of her mother and, in due time the interment of her father. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: "... family graves are intrinsically a good thing, as expressive of family unity and making economical use of grave space. The creation of a family grave formed part of the exceptional circumstances arising in Blagdon." [Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 291 (Court of Arches)]

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his late wife from Sutton Cemetery and reinter them at the North East Surrey Crematorium in Morden. He had agreed to his wife's ashes being interred at Sutton in the grave of his wife's mother and grandmother. The Petitioner expected that he too could have his ashes buried with those of his wife in due course. However, owing to a rift between the petitioner and his wife's sisters, the sisters would not agree to the petitioner's ashes being buried with those of his wife. The Chancellor decided that this was an exceptional case where he could grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment, so that the petitioner's ashes could be buried in the same grave as the ashes of his wife in due time.