Patel v Patel [2025] EWHC 560 (Ch) was a dispute about the funeral arrangements for Bhikhubhai Rambhai Patel, a widower who died in December 2024.

Background

The claimant, Mr Anilkumar Patel, and the first defendant, Ms Jayaben Patel, brother and sister, were appointed as their father’s executors but could not agree on the funeral arrangements; Mr Patel wanted his father to be cremated in England, while Ms Patel wanted him to be buried in India. Meanwhile, their father’s body lay in the mortuary of the second defendant, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. Mr Patel asked the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order that his father’s body should be released into his custody or that of his nominated representatives (such as funeral directors) and that it be cremated and the ashes scattered in accordance with Hindu funeral rites, with such further orders as the court considered appropriate or necessary, and provision for the costs of the claim [1-3].

The dispute

The dispute between the parties centred largely, though not exclusively, on their late father’s wishes in relation to the disposal of his body. Mr Anilkumar Patel said that after his mother’s funeral, his father had expressed gratitude to him for arranging it in accordance with her wishes and their religious beliefs and had told him that he wanted the same Hindu funeral rites when he died, including cremation [12]. Ms Jayaben Patel, however, said that during the last months of her father’s life, he had often stated that he wanted to go to India and die there and had told her that if he died in England, he wanted his body to be taken to India and buried there [13].

HHJ Paul Matthews noted at [14] that:

“Disputes between surviving relatives of a deceased about the funeral arrangements are a tragedy for all concerned. They cause great sadness, even anguish, they prevent the relatives coming to terms with their grief and moving on with their lives, and they often cost a great deal of money. On top of all that, they need to be resolved as quickly as possible, because, whilst the body remains undisposed of, lives are on hold, and resources (usually public resources) are tied up which could be used to assist others.”

While the law was clear as to the right of the deceased’s personal representatives to possession of the body for the purposes of the funeral [16], that right was subject to the power of the court under s.116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981:

“(1) If by reason of any special circumstances it appears to the High Court to be necessary or expedient to appoint as administrator some person other than the person who but for this section would in accordance with probate rules have been entitled to the grant the court may in its discretion appoint as administrator such person as it thinks expedient.

(2)  Any grant of administration under this section may be limited in any way the court thinks fit”.

The claimant and the defendant had been appointed as their father’s executors and, prima facie, it was for them, acting together, to decide on the funeral arrangements – but given that they could not agree, the wishes of one had no automatic priority over the wishes of the other [19].

The judgment

HHJ Matthews noted that the preponderance of family views, including those of one of the two executors, was that Mr Patel should be cremated and the ashes scattered in England in accordance with Hindu rites [44]. Taking his body to India for burial would take longer and involve more uncertainty than cremation in England because the place of burial was not determined, and it would also be significantly more costly: that said, however,

“there are some members of the extended family left in India, including one brother (though his view is that the body should be cremated in England). Whether those relatives could or would attend the funeral might well depend upon how far the place of the funeral was from where they lived. India is a big country” [45].

It was clear that burial was not the normal practice among Hindus, though Ms Patel had said that burials did take place in India [46].  Further, it had been difficult to determine the wishes of the deceased. “[B]oth the claimant and the first defendant were telling the truth as they believed it to be, and neither was attempting to mislead the court”, but neither of them had satisfied him to the civil standard of proof “that the wishes of the deceased were what they said they were. That means that I have been unable to ascertain those wishes, and cannot take them into account” [48].

The place with which Mr Patel was most closely connected was undoubtedly England; he had left India when he was 23 to live in England and had last visited India in 2003 [50]. HHJ Matthews concluded that the right decision was to direct that Mr Patel be cremated and his ashes scattered in England in accordance with the appropriate Hindu rites [53].

Finally:

“I think I should add this. Even if I had found that the deceased’s wishes were in favour of burial in India, I would still have reached the same conclusion. This is not only because the body could not be buried in the part of Gujarat that the deceased came from. It is also because, in a case like this the wishes of the wider family have a great weight. Their needs are the needs of the living. It is they who attend the funeral and must grieve and remember. The funeral gives them both comfort and closure. Added to that, the pull of the country to which there was the greatest connection is strong. The deceased was a citizen of the United Kingdom. This was not his birthplace, but it was his chosen home. The deceased’s views as to how his body be disposed of … are not legally enforceable. They are simply a factor to be taken into account” [54: emphasis added].

[With thanks to Simon Hunter.]

At a subsequent hearing, HHJ Matthews refused permission to appeal: Patel v Patel [2025] EWHC 620 (Ch).

Updated 17 March.