In re Lambeth Cemetery: ConC 28 Jul 2020

Resolution of Conflicts in Court decisions.
The petitioner sought the exhumation of his still born son so that he could be buried alongside his wife who had died several years later.
Held: There had been conflicting decisions as to what amounted to a good and proper reason for an exhumation. The faculty was granted. Five factors worked to make the case a proper exception. It was appropriate to apply the common law principle of stare decisis within the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the latest decision of the relevant courts, having considered the earlier ones was to be followed.
References: [2020] WLR(D) 448
Links: WLRD
Judges: Petchey Ch
Statutes: Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Minister of Pensions v Higham KBD 15-Apr-1948 ([1948] 2 KB 153, [1948] 1 All ER 863)
    The court considered the application of the doctrine of stare decisis when faced with conflicting earlier decisions.
    Held: Denning J said that the ‘general rule’ is that: ‘where there are conflicting decisions of courts of co-ordinate . .
  • Cited – Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries plc ChD 30-Mar-1984 ([1986] Ch 80, [1984] 2 All ER 601)
    If a decision of a court has been reached after full consideration of an earlier decision which went the other way, it should not be open to review on a third occasion when the same point arose for decision.
    Nourse J said: ‘There must come a . .
  • Not Followed – In Re Christ Church, Alsager CC 22-Oct-1998 (Times 22-Oct-98, [1999] Fam 142)
    Examination of proper reasons for exhumation and re-interment were subject to what would be acceptable among right thinking members of the church at large. Delay would reduce chances of successful application. Mistake only sometimes a good reason. . .
  • Cited – In re Hither Green Cemetery 2019 ([2019] Fam 17)
    . .
  • Cited – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 30-Jul-2014 (, [2014] EWHC 501 (Admin))
    The claimant’ sought substantial general, aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and damages under articles 5, 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act, ‘for her unlawful detention, for the malicious and deliberate bullying and . .

These lists may be incomplete.

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.655677