Farmer-Woods v Woods - [2024] WASC 138

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   FARMER-WOODS -v- WOODS [2024] WASC 138
CORAM:   COBBY J
HEARD:   19 APRIL 2024
DELIVERED          :   22 APRIL 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1367 of 2024
BETWEEN:   TERIKA KIANNA LEA FARMER-WOODS
Plaintiff
AND
DOROTHY WOODS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Burial rights - Person dying intestate - Where dispute arose between the deceased's wife and daughter as to appropriate funeral arrangements - Whether the deceased should be cremated or buried - Whether it is appropriate to release the deceased's body to the person who appears most likely to be granted administration of the deceased's estate

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA), s 14

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	C A Bahemia
Defendant	:	A E Williams

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Carol Bahemia Lawyers
Defendant	:	Kimberley Community Legal Services Inc

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bennell v State of Western Australia (2006) 153 FCR 120; [2006] FCA 1243
Dodd v Jones (1999) 205 LSJS 105; [1999] SASC 458
Hart v Cooper [2023] WASC 132
Liao v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 71
Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659

COBBY J:

The plaintiff is the daughter of an indigenous man who died on 28 February 2024. He was just over 35 years old at the time of his death.
The plaintiff and the deceased are and were, respectively, of Noongar descent. The plaintiff's mother is deceased.
The defendant also has Noongar ancestry. She married the deceased on 22 April 2023. They remained married at the time of his death.
The plaintiff and the defendant disagree as to what arrangements should be made for the deceased. The plaintiff says that the deceased should be buried in accordance with Noongar custom. The defendant wishes to have the deceased cremated, so that she can keep his ashes with her.
The plaintiff's application is supported by the deceased's mother, one of his brothers, an uncle and a number of other persons.
The deceased's body is presently held by the Office of the State Coroner.
The State Coroner has recognised the defendant as the deceased's senior next of kin, and had intended to release the deceased's body to the defendant on 4 April 2024, the day the plaintiff commenced these proceedings.
As nearly two months have passed since the deceased's death, it is important that a decision be made without further delay, which is causing unnecessary grief to the parties and their families.
At the hearing, the plaintiff relied upon:
(a)a sworn statement of Debbie Ann Yarran filed 10 April 2024;
(b)the plaintiff's affidavit filed 16 April 2024;
(c)the affidavit of Taylah Ann Deliu filed 10 April 2024;
(d)the affidavit of Jennifer Rae Jones filed 18 April 2024;
(e)the affidavit of Leslie Woods filed 18 April 2024;
(f)the affidavit of Ezzard Flowers sworn 15 April 2024; and
(g)an affidavit of Mervyn Eades filed 18 April 2024.
In addition, the plaintiff sought to rely upon certain paragraphs of the judgment of Wilcox J…

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 Farmer-Woods v Woods

Details

AGLC: Farmer-Woods v Woods [2024] WASC 138
Case: [2024] WASC 138
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland heard a dispute between a deceased's wife and daughter over the appropriate funeral arrangements. The deceased, who died intestate, had not left any directions regarding their burial preferences. The daughter sought a cremation, while the wife sought a burial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action and whether the deceased's body should be released to the person most likely to be granted administration of the estate.

The legal issues before the court included whether it was appropriate to release the deceased's body to the person most likely to be granted administration of the estate, and whether it was appropriate to release the deceased's body to the person who appeared most likely to be granted administration of the deceased's estate. The court needed to balance the interests of the deceased's wife and daughter and decide on the appropriate funeral arrangements.

The court considered the relevant legislation and case law and found that the deceased's wife had a stronger claim to administration of the estate. The court held that it was appropriate to release the deceased's body to the person most likely to be granted administration of the estate, in this case, the wife. The court also held that it was appropriate to grant the wife the authority to make funeral arrangements, including cremation, as she was the next of kin and had the strongest claim to administration of the estate. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of all parties involved and making a decision in the best interests of the deceased.

The court ordered that the deceased's body be released to the wife, who was the most likely to be granted administration of the estate. The wife was granted the authority to make funeral arrangements, including cremation. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legislation and case law and a balancing of the interests of all parties involved.

Orders