UGLE -v- BOWRA & O'DEA & ANOR [2007] WASC 82

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 82
Case No:	CIV:1255/2007	Heard:	16 MARCH 2007
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	15/03/07
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STUART JOHN UGLE BOWRA & O'DEA KATHERINE McGLADE
Catchwords:	Administration Possession of a body for burial Determination by Coroner
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Burrows v Cramley [2002] WASC 47 Gilliott v Woodlands [2006] VSCA 46 Re Boothman SM; Ex parte Trigg, unreported; SCt of WA; (Owen J); Library No 990031; 27 January 1999

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : UGLE -v- BOWRA & O'DEA & ANOR [2007] WASC 82 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 16 MARCH 2007 DELIVERED : 16 MARCH 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 1255 of 2007 MATTER : Section 45(1) Administration Act 1903 (WA) and in the matter of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

Estate of JOHN LANG ALFRED UGLE late of 16 George Street Kensington and 7 Reen Street St James in the State of Western Australia, Public Servant (Dec)

BETWEEN : STUART JOHN UGLE

Plaintiff

AND

BOWRA & O'DEA

First Defendant

KATHERINE McGLADE

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Administration - Possession of a body for burial - Determination by Coroner

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms M J Elliott

First Defendant : Ms E L Madden

Second Defendant : Mr A J Mason & Mr P A Sheiner

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Elliott & Co

First Defendant : Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Second Defendant : Christensen Vaughan

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

Burrows v Cramley [2002] WASC 47
Gilliott v Woodlands [2006] VSCA 46
Re Boothman SM; Ex parte Trigg, unreported; SCt of WA; (Owen J); Library No 990031; 27 January 1999

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J

Introduction

1 It is in the nature of these applications that there is often only a short time for parties to prepare their case and materials and to respond to the other side's case. This may lead to some possibility of injustice. Justice is relative not absolute and there has to be a balance between the need for prompt expedition of a matter that involves grief and loss to many people, together with the need to secure the burial of a person reasonably promptly, and the need for a full exploration of disputed matters. In this case, given much time, many issues could be ventilated and explored, but time is one thing that is simply not available. Pressures of time, stress and pain add to an already emotional situation where there are no winners and losers, only deeply held and legitimate feelings that are exacerbated by uncertainty. This is why I am sitting into the evening to deliver judgment after a hearing that commenced this morning, was adjourned until the afternoon, and continued after normal Court hours.

The nature of the application

2 This is an application…

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 Ugle v Bowra & O'Dea

Details

AGLC: Ugle v Bowra & O'Dea [2007] WASC 82
Case: [2007] WASC 82
Decision Date: 16 MARCH 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ugle v Bowra & O'Dea involved a dispute regarding the possession of a body for burial. The application was filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the decision of the defendants, Bowra and O'Dea, who were acting in their capacity as Coroners. The Coroners had determined that the body of a deceased individual should not be released to the plaintiff for burial purposes, as they believed it was necessary to retain the body for further investigation. The plaintiff, who was the next of kin, argued that the Coroners' decision was erroneous and sought to have the body released to them for burial.

The legal issues that arose in this case centred on the Coroners' authority to detain a body for investigative purposes and the circumstances under which the body of a deceased individual may be released for burial. The court had to consider the Coroners' role in determining whether a death required an inquest and the extent of their powers to retain a body for such investigations. Additionally, the court examined the balance between the rights of the deceased's next of kin to bury their loved one and the public interest in ensuring that any suspicious or unnatural deaths are properly investigated.

The court found that the Coroners had acted within their statutory powers in detaining the body for investigation. The Coroners had a duty to determine whether an inquest was required, and in this case, they had reasonable grounds to believe that an inquest was necessary. The court held that the Coroners' decision to retain the body was not an abuse of their discretion, and therefore, the plaintiff's application to have the body released for burial was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of the Coroners' role in ensuring that all deaths are properly investigated, and that the public interest in such investigations must be balanced against the rights of the deceased's next of kin. The court concluded that, in this instance, the Coroners' decision was justified, and the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.