Analysis
The deceased died intestate in England at the age of 45. The defendant was his partner who was pregnant with his third child. The claimant was one of his children from a previous relationship. Both wished to dispose of his body. The claimant wished to bury the body in France (where two of the deceased’s six children, his two sisters, his mother, and other family members lived). The defendant wished to bury the body in England (his home for the last 13 years of his life, and where she and most of his children lived). A joint expert report indicated that a journal entry stating that the deceased wished to be buried in ‘my country of permanent residence’ had been genuinely written by him.
The defendant’s wish that the deceased be buried in England was supported by his 16 year old daughter from a previous relationship and two of his friends. The claimant’s wish that he be buried in France was supported by his mother.
The claimant brought a Part 8 claim for an order that she be entitled to possession of the body and to make arrangements for its disposal, and insofar as necessary a limited grant of letters of administration under s113 Senior Courts Act 1981. The defendant sought an order under s116 Senior Courts Act 1981 appointing her as administrator.
The claimant’s witnesses (being in France) were not permitted to give oral evidence because they did not have permission from the French competent authority in accordance with the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. Their witness statements were, however, admitted as hearsay evidence pursuant to the Civil Evidence Act 1995.
Held (finding for the defendant):
To appoint an administrator under s116 Senior Courts Act 1981, the court must be satisfied that there are special circumstances which may displace the statutory order of priority and that it is necessary or expedient to displace the order of priority.
In Buchanan v Milton [1999], Hale J had set out four discrete factors which the court considered in the special circumstances of that case:
- (1) the views of the natural family;
- (2) the views of the adopted family;
- (3) the interests of the deceased’s child; and
- (4) the wishes of the deceased.
While the court will usually only need to decide to whom the body should be released, it could also decide the place and method of disposal (Hartshorne v Gardner [2008]). The deceased’s wishes were relevant, but not determinative (Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Makin [2017]).
The court found that it was necessary and expedient to make an order in favour of the defendant. It took into account its findings that this accorded with the deceased’s wishes (rejecting a claim that the journal was forged and that the deceased had indicated a wish to be buried in the same vault as his mother), that the deceased’s focus had been on his young family in the UK (the court finding that he had only visited and received visitors from France occasionally), that as an adult the deceased had not held African values and customs, and that the UK was the place to which the deceased had the closest connection.
JUDGMENT CHIEF MASTER SHUMAN: [1] On 3 June 2021, Augel Pangou died at his home at 19 Stanhope Road, Swanscombe, Kent. The cause of death was sudden adult death syndrome. He was only 45 years old, having been born in Brazzaville, Congo on 28 April 1976. He left his partner of 13 years, Rina Nzoulou, …Continue reading "Pangou v Nzoulou [2022] WTLR 1093"