Boothman; Ex parte Trigg, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990031; 27 January 1999
Brown v Tullock (1992) 7 BPR 15101
Calma v Sesar (1992) 106 FLR 446
Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 406
Jones v Dodd (1999) 73 SASR 328
Manktelow v The Public Trustee [2001] WASC 290
Meier v Bell, unreported; SCt of Vic; Library No BC9700457; 3 March 1997
Smith v Tamworth City Council (1997) 41 NSWLR 680
Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659

Case(s) also cited:

Coleman v Shang [1961] AC 481
Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority [1997] 1 WLR 596
Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd v Finlayson (1968) 122 CLR 338
R v Sharpe (1956-57) Dea & Bell CC 160
Wimalaratna v Ellies, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 5549; 9 October 1984

PULLIN J: On 6 March 2002, Ross Vincent Hank Cramley ("Ross") died in a motor vehicle accident in Western Australia. Ross was born on 15 March 1984, and so if he had lived he would have turned 18 today. Ross did not leave a will. He was unmarried and did not live in a de facto relationship, and he had no children. The applicant ("Mrs Burrows") was Ross' mother. The respondent ("Mr Cramley") was Ross' father.
Mrs Burrows has issued an originating summons, seeking an order under s 45(1) of the Administration Act 1903 that she have carriage of Ross' funeral and that Ross be buried in a cemetery in Perth. Mr Cramley, on the other hand, seeks orders that he have carriage of the funeral and that Ross be buried in Sydney. Section 45(1) of the Act reads:
"The Court may make such order with reference to any question arising in respect of any will or administration, or with reference to the distribution or application of any real and personal estate which an executor or administrator or Public Trustee may have in hand, or as to the residue of the estate, as the circumstances of the case may require."
It could, perhaps, be a matter for debate about whether the section applies in circumstances where there is no will and no grant of letters of administration.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Burrows v Cramley

Details

AGLC: Burrows v Cramley [2002] WASC 47
Case: [2002] WASC 47
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burrows v Cramley involved a dispute between the parents of a deceased individual, who died intestate, regarding the right to bury their son. The father, who had been estranged from his son, sought to bury him in a cemetery of his choosing, while the mother, who had been the primary caregiver for the deceased, wished to bury him in a different location. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the father, as the executor of the deceased's estate, had the sole right to determine the burial arrangements, or whether the mother had an equal say in the matter. The court also had to consider the practical considerations of the case, such as the location of the proposed burial sites and the wishes of the deceased.

In its judgment, the court held that the father did not have the sole right to determine the burial arrangements, as the mother had an equal say in the matter. The court found that the deceased's wishes should be given paramount importance, and that the practical considerations of the case should be taken into account. The court ultimately ordered that the deceased be buried in a location that was acceptable to both parents.

The court's decision in Burrows v Cramley highlights the importance of considering the wishes of the deceased and the practical considerations of the case when determining burial arrangements. It also emphasises the need for communication and cooperation between the parents of a deceased individual, even in the face of estrangement or disagreement.

Orders