Because of a council error, the petitioner and his wife would be unable to be buried in his reserved plot alongside his late mother. Reservation of a different plot in the cemetery to create a family grave was not possible. In the circumstances, the petitioner wished to exhume his mother's remains for re-interment in a burial chamber on land owned by the petitioner and his wife, which would in time receive their remains also. The chamber would be blessed, but not consecrated.

The principles by which a petition for exhumation are to be considered are set out in re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299. But it was not enough for the court to be satisfied that exhumation was justified; exhumation could only be permitted even in exceptional circumstances if the court was satisfied that appropriate arrangements were in place for the continuing protection of the remains (re Tixall Toad Cemetery, Lichfield CC, 2004, unreported). Such arrangements could be assumed if re-interment was to be in consecrated ground or a local authority cemetery (re Blagdon Cemetery, paras 13–15) but not in a case such as the present. Exhumations had been refused in similar circumstances (re Crigglestone Cemetery [2017] ECC Lee 3; re St Thomas, Worting [2018] ECC Win 4).

In the present case, there were exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation. The court was satisfied that the chamber would be structurally appropriate; its predominant concern was the permanence of the arrangement. The chamber was on land that the petitioner and his wife had farmed for 40 years; their sons were farmers, and their grandchildren were engaged in or preparing for careers in farming. The land was likely to remain in the hands of the family for the foreseeable future. While the remains would not be as secure as they would be in consecrated land under the jurisdiction of the court, the court had a considerable degree of assurance that they would be in a secure and seemly setting for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, a faculty would be issued. [DW]