The cremated remains of Mrs K were buried in a plot with the remains of her parents, Mr and Mrs H. The burial was arranged by Mrs K's daughters. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs H's other daughter (Mrs J) and her children petitioned for the exhumation of Mrs K's remains on the basis that they should not have been buried in the grave in the first place as the grave was intended to be reserved only for Mr and Mrs H.

As a result of a vacancy in the parish the burial had been arranged with the parish administrator and the priest who was to take the service (Revd W). The administrator sought the advice of the rural dean when one of the petitioners objected to the burial, who advised orally that the wishes of the next of kin should be observed. The administrator and Revd W took this to mean the next of kin of the deceased, not of those buried in the grave. The objecting petitioner had also been advised that his objection meant that the burial could not proceed.

The chancellor found that no member of the family, nor anyone from the parish, had acted in bad faith. In granting the faculty for exhumation the chancellor applied the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, treating the matter as a case of mistaken burial. He considered the matter as if proper enquiry had been made of both sides of the family prior to burial and dealt with the case as a contested faculty petition for burial. On the basis that the interment should not have occurred and was recent, and that the petitioners’ rights to object had been denied, a faculty for exhumation was granted. The chancellor indicated provisionally that the petitioners should not bear any costs. If agreement about liability for costs could not be reached within 56 days the chancellor would consider adding Revd W, as the priest who conducted the interment, and the parochial church council as parties to the petition on the question of costs. [Catherine Shelley]