In the recently-circulated case Re St. Nicholas Radford [2025] ECC Cov 1, Samuel Ch. observed [at 29] that:

“It seems…that under both Alsager and Blagdon the decision [to permit exhumation] will depend upon the peculiar circumstances of each case, to which general principles can be applied. So that the petitioner can see consistency here with the approach applied in deciding upon other petitions, I give examples of cases where exhumation was permitted, and why, and where exhumation was refused, albeit each case clearly depends upon its own facts and would not bind my hand absolutely”.

The examples of these other “cases on exhumation” are reproduced below with links to the judgments;  the ELS Summary of Re St. Nicholas Radford is here.

Other cases on Exhumation

“[30]. Examples of cases where exhumation was permitted, and why, and where exhumation was refused, albeit each case clearly depends upon its own facts and would not bind my hand absolutely”.

Exhumation permitted

In the matter of Cyril Jones (Deceased)[2016] ECC Liv 4. Exhumation was permitted for reinterment elsewhere as there was no room in the Churchyard for the intended interment of the deceased’s widow when she died. Re All Saints Barrowby [2019] ECC Lin 1 – there had been a mistaken belief that the funeral plot was deep enough to permit the burial of the deceased’s wife’s ashes when she too died. The Chancellor granted exhumation to allow the original intention of a joint grave.

Re Cottingley Hall Cemetery [2023] ECC Lee 1. By an error of those controlling the cemetery the remains of the deceased had been interred in plot F227 instead of the family grave at F225. Exhumation and reinterment was appropriate (b) Where there had been a change in circumstances applying to the grave or cremation plot itself Re All Saints Ladbroke [2016] ECC Cov 6 – an extension to the church had been built very close to this interment plot so that, several times, the upright memorial stone had been used as a step by those intent on stealing lead from the Church roof. Exhumation and relocation within the same churchyard was appropriate. The then Chancellor stated: “This is wholly different from those cases where exhumation is sought for private purposes“.

Re All Saints West Bromwich [2019] ECC Lic 1. The interment was near a drain pipe that leaked and needed repair work that would cause disturbance to the interment plot. It was appropriate to permit exhumation and reinterment in the same churchyard but away from the drain.

To create a family grave Re Mandy Ramshaw [2016] ECC Oxf 1 the Chancellor expressed that the desire to create a family grave was an exceptional circumstance that would permit exhumation. He did, however, require proof that the location of the proposed family grave had been duly reserved by faculty. Re David Bell (deceased) [2016] ECC She4 it was appropriate to grant exhumation for cremation of the body, to then allow reinterment elsewhere in order to create a family grave. The Chancellor also expressed satisfaction that the procedure would be supervised by experienced funeral directors and a member of the Clergy, who would ensure due reverence was applied to the whole procedure.

Medical condition affecting the bereaved

Re An Application for Exhumation [2024] ECC Wor 2. The Court received expert medical evidence from two practitioners showing that the removal of interred remains from a public cemetery to a private burial ground would have significant benefit for one of the bereaved. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the remains of the father and son, after such a long period (nearly 50 years), could be identified and fully removed

Permission to exhume refused

In the Matter of Howard Charles Griffiths [2018] ECC Bir 1. Twenty Seven years after burial the petitioner sought exhumation on the basis that the churchyard was not well kept and the interment plot was close to a fume-producing gas generator (that had been in place for 22 years). There had been no mistake made in the initial decision to inter the remains in consecrated ground and the petitioner had not acted swiftly if the cited gas governor and lack of maintenance were the real grounds for seeking exhumation.

Re Kathrine Tollis [2016] ECC Oxf 2. The petitioner wished to exhume her late husband’s ashes and send them for interment in Antibes, where he had lived for some time and which place the family all regularly visited. There had been no specific request of the deceased to be buried in Antibes – he had left the arrangements to the discretion of his widow. That ‘change of mind’ by the Widow did not amount to the exceptional circumstances needed to justify the exhumation.

Re All Saints Allesley [2018] ECC Cov 10. The petitioner had moved away from the area where her husband had been interred. She sought exhumation to bring him closer to where she now lived. ‘A change of mind based upon a change of family circumstances’ did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

Where the intention was to scatter previously buried ashes

Re All Hallows Ordsall [2019] ECC S&N 1. This was unusually a confirmatory faculty, where exhumation had already occurred subject to an incorrectly issued MOJ licence, rather than the required faculty. It made no sense to refuse a faculty to legitimise the exhumation that had already occurred. Although the intention had been to scatter the previously interred ashes, the Chancellor expressed a wish that the petitioner should change his mind and choose reinterment instead at a new location.

Re An Application for the Exhumation of the Mortal Remains of RM [2024] ECC Wor 5. Thirty nine years after burial the petitioner sought permission to exhume her Father’s ashes so that they could be mixed with the ashes of the recently deceased Widow, who had never desired interment, and be scattered. There were no exceptional circumstances such as to justify exhumation. There had been no mistake made in originally seeking interment of the deceased.

Re Sheringham Town Cemetery [2023] ECC Nor 1. The ashes of the petitioners’ father had been interred in the cemetery in 2004 in a plot reserved for the ashes of him and his wife. Some years later, the petitioners’ mother had decided that she did not wish her ashes to be buried with those of her husband but wanted them scattered where she used to walk her dog. She had also expressed a wish that her husband’s ashes be exhumed and scattered in the same place. The petitioners’ mother died in 2023. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to allow the ashes of the petitioners’ father to be exhumed and scattered. There was no legal basis on which to justify exhumation. There had been no mistake as to the place of burial, but simply a change of mind after a long period of time, which was not a proper reason for allowing an exception to the general rule that burial should be regarded as final.

Re St. Nicholas Radford [2025] ECC Cov 1

The petitioner sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of each of her parents from the churchyard of St. Nicholas Radford (the church itself having been demolished), so that the remains could be taken to Oakley Wood Crematorium for interment or scattering next to a family memorial bench commemorating the petitioner’s husband. The cremated remains of the petitioner’s mother and father had been interred in 1991 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner stated that she found it too far to travel to the churchyard. The Crematorium advised that its grounds were unconsecrated; that only scattering was allowed; and that no permission could be given for relocation of the memorial stone. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Difficulty in travelling to a grave was not a sufficiently exceptional circumstance to justify an exception to the normal presumption of permanence of burial. Moreover, the petitioner’s father had clearly wished his cremated remains to be buried in the same grave as the remains of his wife, rather than be scattered.