Patel v Patel 2025 – How does the Court approach Funeral Disputes

The recent case of Patel v Patel demonstrates the legal considerations to be taken into account in funeral/burial disputes and how a court approaches these types of disputes.

What does the law say?

Firstly, no one legally owns a body, and it cannot be regarded as property. The deceased’s personal representatives, i.e., the executors or administrators of an estate, have the right to arrange for a body’s disposal by funeral; however, they have no right to ownership of the body. This can clearly cause complications where personal representatives may disagree with each other or the deceased’s family regarding funeral arrangements.

In the case of Hartshorne v Gardner in 2008, the court identified the following factors to which the court ought to have regard when deciding the outcome of a funeral/burial dispute:

• The deceased’s wishes.
• The reasonable requirements and wishes of the family who are left to grieve.
• The body should be disposed of with proper respect and decency and, if possible, without any further delay.

It was the last factor which the court identified as the most important consideration.

What were the facts of this case?

Patel v Patel concerned the funeral arrangements for the late Bhikhubhai Rambhai Patel, who died on 30th December 2024. Mr Patel prepared a Will dated 22nd December 1993, which appointed the claimant and first defendant, his surviving son and daughter, respectively, to be executors and trustees and left his residuary estate to them both in equal shares. The Will did not give any directions regarding funeral arrangements.

The claimant and the first defendant were unable to agree on what funeral arrangements should be made. Specifically, the claimant wished for her father’s body to be cremated and his ashes scattered in England, whilst the first defendant wished for the body to be taken to India and buried there. As such, the court was asked to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to make an order with respect to appropriate funeral arrangements.

The key issue was that the deceased did not give any directions as to his desired funeral arrangements in his Will. However, it is important to note that even if he had indicated his funeral wishes in his Will, these would not be legally binding. The executors would have the ultimate authority to make decisions regarding the funeral arrangements.

As the deceased’s wishes could not be identified from his Will or any other document, the case was largely decided on witness evidence. The claimant argued that the deceased had told him he wanted the same Hindu funeral rites used at his wife’s funeral, including cremation. However, the first defendant argued that she and her father spoke together in the last months of his life and that he often stated he wanted to go back to India and die there. She argued that the deceased expressly told her that if he died in England, he wanted his body to be taken to India and buried there. Both parties had witness statements in support of their arguments, although the claimant had more witnesses in support.

What was the outcome?

HHJ Paul Matthews in handing down his judgment, considered the third and most important factor as set out in Hartshorne v Gardner, stating that taking the body back to India for burial would take longer and involve more uncertainty than cremation in England on the basis that the place of burial in India was not ascertained at that stage. It would also be significantly more costly because of the need not only to transport the body to India but also for those family and friends mourning in England to have to travel to India and back to attend the funeral.

Whilst there was no direction for expert evidence in the case, the court did have regard to traditional Hindu religious practice with the assistance of the parties themselves and other family members. The court stated that it is clear amongst Hindus that burial is not the normal practice.

In light of the additional delay and cost associated with a burial in India, the court held that a cremation in England was the preferred funeral arrangement. HHJ Paul Matthews did, however, note the following:

“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 where the deceased came from. It is also because, in a case like this, the wishes of the wider family are very important. Their needs are the needs of the living…The deceased’s views as to how his body should be disposed of, as I have said, are not legally enforceable. They are simply a factor to be taken into account“.

What can we take away from this?

It is clear from the case of Patel that the court will regard all of the factors identified in Hartshorne v Gardner when faced with a funeral or burial dispute. What may come as a surprise is that, seemingly, the court will place a greater weight on the wishes of the living and in ensuring a funeral goes ahead with respect and without further delay, even if this may conflict with the deceased’s wishes.

Whilst the court favoured other factors in this case, it remains important for the living to clearly note their funeral wishes in a Will or other form of document. Whilst not legally binding, they will assist executors (and the court in the event that there is a dispute) in determining what the deceased would have wanted.

The case of Patel also highlights the need for a practical and logistical approach to be adopted by executors when it comes to funeral arrangements and for a compromise to be considered in order to ensure that a funeral goes ahead without undue delay.

Contact our Contentious Wills and Probate solicitors today

If you have any issues covered in this article, please get in touch with our specialist Contentious Wills and Probate team by using our online enquiry form or by calling 0330 191 4448