Ghosh v Ghosh

The case of Ghosh v Ghosh involved two brothers, the applicants, who sought leave to appeal against and to stay orders made by a judge of the Supreme Court. The dispute arose following the death of their mother in hospital. One of the applicants alleged that their mother was "systematically murdered" and that her body should have been available for evidence. However, the Coroner found that the mother's death was "not reportable." The applicants challenged the judge's orders that released their mother's body for cremation and restrained them from dealing with or disposing of their mother's assets. The applicants also disputed the validity of their mother's will. The applications were heard by the judge alone, pursuant to rules 64.15(4) and 64.15(5) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The judge dismissed the applications without making an order as to costs.
The legal issues before the court were whether the judge erred in making the orders releasing the mother's body for cremation and in making the freezing orders restraining the applicants from dealing with or disposing of their mother's assets. The applicants argued that the judge should have considered their allegations that their mother was murdered and that her body should have been available for evidence. The applicants also argued that the judge should have considered the risk of disposition of estate assets and the validity of the mother's will. The court had to determine whether the judge's orders were correct and whether the applicants had a sufficient case to appeal.

The court found that the judge did not err in making the orders releasing the mother's body for cremation and in making the freezing orders restraining the applicants from dealing with or disposing of their mother's assets. The court held that the judge had properly considered the evidence and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the Coroner's determination that the mother's death was "not reportable" was a sufficient basis for the judge's orders. The court also found that the judge had properly exercised his discretion in making the freezing orders to prevent the risk of disposition of estate assets. The court held that the applicants did not have a sufficient case to appeal and that the applications should be dismissed. The court did not make an order as to costs.