JB v PRN - [2024] WASC 219

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   JB -v- PRN [2024] WASC 219
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   11 JUNE 2024
DELIVERED          :   11 JUNE 2024
PUBLISHED           :   14 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1480 of 2024
BETWEEN:   JB
Plaintiff
AND
PRN
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Burial rights - Person dying intestate - Where dispute arose between family of the deceased's father and mother as to funeral arrangements - Approach to be taken where it is unlikely that an application for administration will ever be made - Dispute to be resolved in a practical way - Unreasonable delay to be avoided - Who should have carriage of funeral - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA)s 4

Result:

Application allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	M Bennett
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Cases referred to in decision:

Britt v Office of the State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75
Burrows v Cramley [2002] WASC 47
Dann v Office of the State Coroner [2020] WASC 486
Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 406
Jones v Dodd [1999] SASC 125; (1999) 73 SASR 328
Mourish v Wynne [2009] WASC 85
Smith v Tamworth City Council (1997) 41 NSWLR 680
Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659

HILL J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 11 June 2024 and has been edited from the transcript.)

On 30 April 2024, the plaintiff commenced these proceedings by originating summons and sought orders for an urgent injunction to prevent the funeral of the Deceased occurring until after this application had been determined. Orders were made by the court on 3 May 2024 for the second defendant to be restrained from acting on the s 29(1) certificate issued by the Coroner until further order of the court.
The plaintiff in these proceedings is the sister of the paternal grandfather of the Deceased. As is common in Aboriginal custom, the Deceased referred to her as [Nanna J]. Her application is supported by RJB, the father of the Deceased. The second defendant is the Deceased's mother.
The Deceased died on [redacted], sadly, one day after his 18^thbirthday.
The evidence before the court is that the Deceased's paternal family identify primarily as Wongi People. His maternal family are Noongar People. Submissions were made by the second defendant's aunt that the maternal family identify as Catholic Christians.
The second defendant and the father of the Deceased have been unable to agree on the funeral arrangement. The second defendant in a Facebook post has indicated in somewhat forceful language her strong opposition to members of RJB's family attending any funeral of the Deceased.
By an amended originating summons filed 6 June 2024, the plaintiff applies for an order that she be given the carriage and control of the funeral and burial of the deceased and that she be entitled to arrange the funeral. Since the proceedings were commenced, the proceedings have been listed for directions…

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 JB v PRN

Details

AGLC: JB v PRN [2024] WASC 219
Case: [2024] WASC 219
Decision Date: 14 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JB v PRN was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the funeral arrangements for a person who died intestate. The parties in contention were the family of the deceased's father and the family of the deceased's mother, each asserting their right to conduct the funeral according to their own cultural and religious practices. The central issue was determining the rightful party to arrange and oversee the deceased's burial, given the absence of a will and potential conflicts between the two families.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate approach to take in such cases where an application for administration may never be made. It had to consider how to resolve disputes in a practical manner, ensuring that the process did not become unreasonably prolonged. The court considered whether there were any established guidelines or principles that could assist in resolving the dispute and determining who should bear the responsibility for the funeral arrangements.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the need to resolve the dispute in a practical way, avoiding any unreasonable delay. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, with the court weighing the cultural and religious factors presented by both families. Ultimately, the court found that the family of the deceased's father should have the primary responsibility for arranging the funeral. This decision was made considering the practicalities of the situation and the likelihood of achieving a timely resolution.

The court ordered that the family of the deceased's father should have the primary responsibility for arranging the funeral. This decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the cultural and religious factors presented by both families. The court's ruling aimed to provide a practical and timely resolution to the dispute.

Orders