Godwin v Godwin - Body Disposal Disposal [2026] EWHC 923 (Ch)

1. You are in Find Case Law
2. William Quentin Godwin v Jason Peter Godwin

William Quentin Godwin v Jason Peter Godwin

[2026] EWHC 923 (Ch)

William Quentin Godwin v Jason Peter Godwin

[2026] EWHC 923 (Ch)

---

HH Judge Klein:

---

1. This is a judgment following the final hearing of a recently expedited claim, begun on 27 January 2026, which concerns how the body of Michael Godwin, who died on 5 November 2025, should be disposed of.

---

1. Mr Godwin had three sons; Adrian, who died in 2019, the Claimant, William, and the Defendant, Jason. He had three grand-children; the two daughters of Adrian (who, the Claimant told me, did not have a relationship with Mr Godwin) and the Defendant’s son, also called Michael (who did have a relationship with Mr Godwin). The Claimant and the Defendant, who are litigants in person, are Mr Godwin’s closest living relatives. Because they cannot agree how Mr Godwin’s body will be disposed of, I have had to determine that issue.

---

1. In this judgment, I set out my decision about how Mr Godwin’s body should be disposed of and the reasons for my decision. Before reaching my decision, I took into account every document in the trial bundle and the supplemental trial bundle, save for those, such as negotiating correspondence between the parties, which, according to an impressive and comprehensive case management order made by District Judge Bond on 18 March 2026, should not have been included in a trial bundle. I also considered all the oral evidence I heard and the parties’ submissions.

---

Background

---

1. Mr Godwin was born on 7 December 1929 in Surbiton. When he died, he was one month shy of his ninety-sixth birthday. He died in St. James’ University Hospital in Leeds.

---

1. Mr Godwin’s body is currently in the mortuary of a Leeds undertaker, where it has been since 25 November 2025. It has only been partially embalmed and will have decomposed in the more than five months since his death. I do not know in what conditions it has been maintained; in particular, whether it has been refrigerated. Distressingly, it may be in a state of putrefaction.

---

1. Before his retirement, Mr Godwin had an impressive career in lift engineering, which was acknowledged in an obituary in Lift Industry News.

---

1. Mr Godwin made his home, in retirement, for at least 30 years in the south of France, mainly in Cagnes-sur-Mer, which is between Antibes and Nice. He never fully integrated into French life. By his own admission, he spoke no French. According to the Defendant, following the end of his relationship with Arlette Thomas, (other than Ms Thomas perhaps) Mr Godwin had no known friends, other than his patent attorney, Natalie Jones (the patent attorney’s partner) and Fred Barnes, who pre-deceased Mr Godwin, and he did not socialise in Cagnes-sur-Mer.

---

1. Mr Godwin made a home-made will on 25 April 2003 (“the 2003 will”). He was in hospital for a heart procedure (angioplasty) that day. The 2003 will provides:

---

“I nominate my son William to execute the distribution of my possessions in accordance with my last wishes.

---

---

My body is taken and interred in the plot reserved from me at the cemetery in Hargeville…France, with Arlette attending”

---

---

1. The reference to “Arlette” is a reference to Ms Thomas, who was Mr Godwin’s partner in 2003. She had reserved a plot in the Hargeville cemetery for herself and a separate plot for Mr Godwin. As it happens, Mr Godwin’s plot is not available for use, but another plot is available at the cemetery which the Defendant has reserved.

---

1. Ms Thomas reserved burial plots in the Hargeville cemetery because her family came from Hargeville or nearby. Hargeville is located west of Paris, in northern France. It is a 600 mile drive between Hargeville and Cagnes-sur-Mer. The only connection which Mr Godwin had with Hargeville is that Ms Thomas wished to be buried there at the time she reserved the plots.

---

1. The relationship between Mr Godwin and Ms Thomas ended about fifteen years before his death. I do not know if Ms Thomas is alive, although she may be because the Defendant’s correspondent in Hargeville has not suggested that Ms Thomas’ own burial plot has been used. In any event, neither party has located her, let alone, if she is alive, sought her views about where she now wishes to be buried or about the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body.

---

1. Found in Mr Godwin’s papers after he died is a Google image of Hargeville apparently printed in 2012, with the typed caption:

---

“This is church for my funeral. In the graveyard I have a plot I share with Arlette Thomas adjacent to the Thomas family grave. Please bury me there.”

---

Because it is not possible to establish precisely when Mr Godwin’s relationship with Ms Thomas ended, it is not possible to know whether the image was printed after the end of their relationship. It might have been, however. The Defendant suggested (although I do not think that the Claimant accepted) that Mr Godwin and Ms Thomas kept in touch after the end of their relationship. I do not understand it to be disputed that Mr Godwin kept a picture of Ms Thomas in his home after the end of their relationship.

---

1. Although the Google image is in the agreed trial bundle prepared by the Claimant, at the hearing he did not accept the authenticity of the document or that the caption was typed by Mr Godwin. There is no basis at all for concluding that the Google image was not printed in 2012, as dated, and there is no basis at all either for concluding that Mr Godwin did not type the caption. The words of the caption clearly suggest that it was typed by Mr Godwin and it is inconceivable that someone else (presumably, on the Claimant’s case, the Defendant) typed the caption before Mr Godwin died, in expectation of a dispute, as it happens thirteen years later, about how Mr Godwin’s body should be disposed of.

---

1. On 15 May 2025, Mr Godwin made a Mandat. The closest equivalents in this jurisdiction are enduring and lasting powers of attorney, but neither is strictly the same, at least in this case. The Mandat covered not only Mr Godwin’s property and finances. It covered his personal welfare too. It could only be effective after a clinician had certified that Mr Godwin had lost capacity, at least in relation to certain functions.

---

1. By the Mandat, Mr Godwin appointed the Claimant his mandatory (his attorney). In one part of the Mandat, Mr Godwin provided that, if the Claimant declined to act, the Defendant was appointed as Mr Godwin’s attorney in the Claimant’s place. In another part of the Mandat, Mr Godwin provided (as translated into English) that:

---

“I do not wish, under any pretext, that my other son, Jason Godwin, be able to hold with regard to my person or my property the slightest power of decision, control, supervision, protection, power of attorney, or any other similar to those which I hereby confer on my legal representative, William Godwin, or which the law confers on persons responsible for the protection of incapacitated persons.

---

---

It is my wish that the rights that may accrue to Jason Godwin be very strictly limited to those that the law reserves to him as heir.

---

---

If a judge were to consider any difficulty relating to the conclusion or execution of this mandate, I wish him to consider as imperative and exclusive my wish to remove Jason Godwin from any power in respect of my person or my property, and I wish instead that a professional third party be appointed to protect me, should William Godwin himself be replaced or prevented from carrying out his duties for one reason or another.

---

---

The same clause applies to all close relatives, except William Godwin, of my son Jason Godwin, as well as to his friends, any concubines or wives, and generally any persons who may have any personal connection with him, through which he could indirectly recover a power that I expressly deny him.”

---

---

1. According to the Mandat, the Claimant was to be paid £550 a month to act as Mr Godwin’s attorney.

---

1. Mr Godwin also recorded in the Mandat that he wanted a funeral and burial “in accordance with Christian traditions”.

---

1. On 21 July 2025, Dr Olivier Bisch gave the necessary clinician’s certificate.

---

1. On 27 July 2025, the Claimant surreptitiously recorded a telephone conversation, mainly between Mr Godwin and the Defendant, during which the following exchanges took place:

---

“Defendant: [In relation to] the Power of Attorney. You said “I didn’t agree with this”.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh no. I don’t know where that’s come from.

---

---

…

---

---

Defendant: Well, you---just to explain, if you give me a moment. So, the Court had an application from William for a Power of Attorney and they also have an instruction from you to cancel that.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh dear, oh dear.

---

---

Defendant: Oh and it’s at your request.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh dear.

---

---

Defendant: So---

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh. Well, how do I put it right so that William retains Power of Attorney?

---

---

Defendant: …[H]e wants to move you to the UK, yeah?

---

---

Mr Godwin: No. I’m not going to the UK. I’m thinking about it because of the difficulties, but I’ve got to find somewhere to live if I go to the UK.

---

---

Defendant: Well that’s what’s William’s proposing for you.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Pardon?

---

---

Defendant: That’s what William’s proposing for you to move to the UK.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well that’s what William’s what?

---

---

Defendant: Proposing.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Supposing?

---

---

Defendant: Proposing.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Proposing.

---

---

Defendant: Yes.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, I haven’t got anywhere to go.

---

---

Defendant: Well, William will find some…shithole in Leeds or Bradford.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: I don’t want to leave here.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: I’ll go at an appropriate time. But, ---

---

---

Defendant: William has Power of Attorney, he decides, not you.

---

---

…

---

---

Defendant: William…wants to spend your money on fixing the house.

---

---

Mr Godwin: No, he doesn’t.

---

---

Defendant: That’s what he wants, so it can be rented out.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, what’s wrong with William being my choice for him to be Power of Attorney?

---

---

Defendant: Well, my suggestion, and I thought this was what you wanted, was to, when the time comes, stay in France and go to a nice care home in France.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, I can do that with---and William can look after the house.

---

---

Defendant: William’s very clear, he does not want you in France.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, I mean, if nobody’s gonna be here, then I’m going to put the, as I said, place up for sale.

---

---

Defendant: Well that’ll be William’s decision, not yours and then he’s going to put it into a trust. He’s trying to hide it so that he can get state support in England, because if your assets are less than £23,000, then you can get state support. So, first he wants to spend your money on the house and then he wants to put it in a monetary trust so that the UK authorities doesn’t think you own a house.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: And there must be a care home in Yorkshire---I will find and look for somewhere that’s suitable. But, I don’t know how you---

---

---

Defendant: William would look for you. He controls your money and William has said that he wants to get state support and put you in a state care home, a UK state care home.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: Why are you making all this trouble? I just want to go and retire in a care home near William. That’s all.

---

---

Defendant: I think what you do, you’ve changed your mind obviously, because a few weeks ago, the last time we were there, you were very happy with the care home on the Riviera, and you made it clear about wanting to stay on the Riviera.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: Yeah, but I can’t---[I]t’s not realistic because I just get--- nobody’s going to come to the Riviera to volun---and I would rather --- and I don’t speak the language and it, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s very nice if you’re competent in every way like I am with the house, I can carry---that’s why I went here, because of the climate and everything.

---

---

Defendant: The care homes in the UK generally have got a terrible reputation.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh no, it can’t be the case. They can’t all be bad.

---

---

Defendant: They just drug you up and put you in front of the television all day to keep you quiet.

---

---

Mr Godwin: No.

---

---

Defendant: Yes.

---

---

Mr Godwin: No---[W]ell, when I’ve been to see one. It didn’t look like that to me. It didn’t look like that at all because I, I tried one out. I tried one out, but I forget where it was. But I tried one out.

---

---

Defendant: Yeah. All right then.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh, I---look, I’ll never solve this problem of you two boys. I can’t do anything about it. I’m see---oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I don’t know why, why---

---

---

Defendant: Well, you know, William’s desperate to get control of your estate and hide the money until you’re gone and then grab it all and that’s it.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, if that’s my wish that he should do that or have that, that’s my wish---[A]ren’t I allowed to make any decisions? Do I have to do what you tell me?

---

---

Defendant: No, you need to follow the law. The law in France requires distribution of your estate if you have anything left.

---

---

Mr Godwin: All right, then when it’s sold I will distribute the money to you two boys.

---

---

Defendant: I would say it even goes beyond that, you have a third son, Adrian. You may forget that you have Adrian.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Yes, of course. The third one in three sons.

---

---

Defendant: Well, but under French law, the children of Adrian get a share.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Yeah, that’ll be right.

---

---

Defendant: Well, these are things you didn’t know or understood perhaps. But of course if you’re no longer in France, you’re no longer resident there, then I suppose English law would apply and William’ll try and…make it solely for his benefit. I don’t know.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh dear, what a mess. Oh dear, oh dear.

---

---

Defendant: [Y]ou know, if you’re coming to the point where you’ve got to make the decision to what’s in your best interests and William, with no money, on, on welfare, on unemployment, he’s probably just---

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, his needs are far higher than you to have a place to live.

---

---

Defendant: He’s got a place to live. He lives in a council flat.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh.

---

---

Defendant: Doesn’t he? That’s his life and he’s upset, and Adrian is upset. Anyway, look---

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh, well I don’t want to go on, you’re, you’re wearing me down…”

---

---

1. It seems that Mr Godwin’s Mandat could only operate when it was activated by a Tribunal. On 30 July 2025, a Greffier in the French Tribunals service (an official of the Tribunals service, perhaps equivalent to a probate registrar) refused to activate the Mandat, although not because of the inconsistencies in the Mandat relating to the Defendant’s appointment as substitute attorney, or because, as a lay attorney, the Claimant was to be remunerated.

---

1. The Greffier’s decision was made at a hearing attended by Mr Godwin and the Claimant, together with two advocats who both claimed to act for Mr Godwin. The reason why there were two advocats claiming to act for Mr Godwin is because one was instructed by the Defendant, apparently based on Mr Godwin’s written request of 30 May 2025, and despite the 27 July 2025 conversation, to obtain a revocation of the Mandat and the other was instructed, perhaps by the Claimant at Mr Godwin’s request, to press for the activation of the Mandat. There are minutes of the hearing which Mr Godwin and the Claimant refused to endorse, but which have been endorsed by the two advocats. The minutes suggest that the Greffier decided not to activate the Mandat because:

i) the Defendant had not signed it;

---

ii) the provisions for the supervision of the attorney were insufficient;

---

iii) two advocats claimed to act for Mr Godwin, and they had diametrically opposed instructions;

---

iv) Mr Godwin’s revocation request was made so close to the making of the Mandat.

---

1. Natalie Jones gave a witness statement in support of the Claimant. As I have said, she is the patent attorney’s partner. She has not attended the hearing. There has apparently been nothing stopping Ms Jones attending the hearing.

---

1. Ms Jones has known Mr Godwin since 2011. She said that his capacity deteriorated in 2025, although he “retained moments of clarity” even when “he became increasingly vulnerable to confusion…and influence by others.” She was one of the translators who attended the Tribunal hearing, although she suggested that it took place on 31 July 2025. She said that she was a close friend of Mr Godwin and of the Claimant, but did not meet the Defendant until the day of the Tribunal hearing and that Mr Godwin rarely spoke of him. Her assessment is that Mr Godwin trusted the Claimant to manage his affairs. Indeed, she said Mr Godwin “often expressed the wish” that the Claimant should manage his affairs if he was not capable of doing so. She recounted what happened at the Tribunal. She said that Mr Godwin was anxious about having to incur legal costs “against his wishes” and he angrily shouted at the Defendant:

---

“Why are you doing this Jason? You’ve never been involved in my life. You have your life in Prague. You know it is William I want to care for me. You have never cared for me. Go back to Prague and leave us in peace”.

---

(In her witness statement, this evidence is given as direct speech).

---

1. The Defendant disputes Ms Jones’ version of events.

---

1. Darren Eastell has also given evidence in support of the Claimant. He said that he met Mr Godwin for the first time in May 2025, in Cagnes-sur-Mer. He stayed in Mr Godwin’s home for about three weeks. He had been asked to join the Claimant there because concerns had been expressed, perhaps by the local Social Services, about the state of Mr Godwin’s home. Mr Eastell explained that it needed a “deep clean”. He said that Mr Godwin told him that Ms Jones and her partner were his only friends. He also said that Mr Godwin repeatedly said that he relied on the Claimant for “decision-making” and that he expressed his love for the south of France, his dislike of French people and his willingness to live in Yorkshire. He recounted that Mr Godwin expressed himself to the Defendant as he apparently did at the Tribunal on several occasions.

---

1. Mr Godwin came to England on 11 August 2025. Following his death, a note was found in his home in Cagnes-sur-Mer which reads: “The owner Mr Michael Godwin is on holiday in the UK”, and provides a UK mobile telephone contact number. The Claimant said that the note was written by him one or two months before Mr Godwin came to England, at a time when Mr Godwin was only planning a holiday here.

---

1. Mr Godwin was admitted to the hospital on 21 August 2025. He remained in the hospital until 9 October 2025, when he was discharged to a care home, but he was later re-admitted to the hospital, where he died.

---

1. On 8 September 2025, a judge of the French equivalent of the Court of Protection appointed a professional, Audrey Martoscia, as Mr Godwin’s special representative. The closest equivalent in this jurisdiction is a deputy for both property and finance and for personal welfare. The judge’s order suggests that they were satisfied by Dr Bisch’s certificate that Mr Godwin lacked capacity in relation to certain functions at least.

---

1. The Claimant surreptitiously recorded a meeting he had with Mr Godwin on 1 October 2025, when Mr Godwin was in the hospital. The recording lasts for just under an hour. The following exchanges took place:

---

“Claimant: So, I spoke with social services and two people that you met, Hamilton and Cynthia, and they’ve reported to me to say having spoken with you, you’ve made it clear to them that I, William, am acting purely out of greed and that you do not think I am suitable to be your attorney. In addition, you’ve stated that you do not want to be here in the UK, but you want to return to France. So, I cannot protect, assist, care or do anything now.

---

---

…

---

---

Claimant: It’s down to social services and Jason. You can’t go home though [to] Rue Netter. You’re under a guardianship in France when you return. A woman that puts you into care somewhere, sells your house, and controls all your money.

---

---

Mr Godwin: I don’t---

---

---

Claimant: But you’ve told them that’s what you want [inaudible].

---

---

Mr Godwin: I haven’t told anybody I want---

---

---

Claimant: Well, unfortunately Dad, I can’t argue with qualified social workers that have interviewed you and spoken with you and produced an opinion. It also means that I cannot, with their assistance, make any application here in the UK to the Court of Protection and there’s very little point in me doing it myself. So, you know, that’s where we are.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh dear, oh dear.

---

---

Claimant: But I am upset. I felt that I had been dutiful and cared for you and come to your home, got ambulances, taken you to hospital appointments, brought you here, visited every day.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Yeah.

---

---

Claimant: And demonstrated that, unlike Jason, I am caring.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Yes.

---

---

Claimant: But anyway, for want of a better term, Dad, whether you knew it or not, you’ve thrown me under the bus. So, there’s nothing more I can do.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh, I haven’t done anything.

---

---

Claimant: No, you’ve told them that I’m motivated purely by greed.

---

---

…

---

---

Claimant: I can’t argue against it now. I don’t really know what to do and Jason is winning hand over fist, right? So, you’ll probably go back to France, probably, because you’re under a guardian there, so she will decide which care home you go into, she pays for it out of your money and sells the house to Jason. It’s my belief, for the reasons that I’ve given to you and to all the medical staff here and social services, that you are best off here, in the UK and we had originally found a home, care home for you just up the road from me, that’s gone. [T]hey’re doing what’s called a brokerage, which means they’re just looking for the cheapest care home in in Leeds, to put you in.

---

---

…

---

---

Claimant: …what they [(that is, Adult Social Services)] are doing now, is they are looking for any Leeds care home to take you, and they’re obligated to find one as cheap as possible. And in due course, they will find one and they will arrange discharge of you from the hospital and take you to the home and that will be your permanent location.

---

---

…

---

---

Mr Godwin: [S]o what progress do you think between us we can make to---

---

---

Claimant: …You tell the staff what you want. You tell the staff---

---

---

Mr Godwin: But I don’t want to be bothered with---

---

---

Claimant: Right, well then you want---

---

---

Mr Godwin: I want to get out of here.

---

---

…

---

---

Claimant: …[Y]ou need to be clear that you mean get out of here. So don’t say, “I want to go home”, say, “I want to leave hospital”.

---

---

Mr Godwin: All right.

---

---

Claimant: Right. Because otherwise your home is in Cagnes-Sur-Mer, so…they say, “Oh, he wants to go home”….And Jason wants him to go home. William is the one that doesn’t want him to go home. But what you actually mean when you say that is you want to get out of hospital, isn’t it?

---

---

Mr Godwin: All right, so that’s what I’ll say.

---

---

Claimant: Come on, Dad. Get smarter. You can say whatever you want, Dad, I’m just advising you and telling you what historically has happened.

---

---

Mr Godwin: All right, I’ll say I want to leave hospital.

---

---

Claimant: Right.

---

---

Mr Godwin: And can someone take me home?

---

---

Claimant: What, to Cagnes-Sur-Mer?

---

---

Mr Godwin: Yeah.

---

---

Claimant: Okay. I give up. I give up.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Well, are you saying I can’t go to Cagnes-Sur-Mer because there’s nobody to look after me?

---

---

Claimant: I’m saying there’s nobody to look after you at your home in Cagnes-Sur-Mer.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Right, so what are my options?

---

---

Claimant: We tried that. No, no we tried that before, okay? Secondly, if you go back to France, there is a legally appointed court guardian that makes all the decisions for you. Not me.

---

---

Mr Godwin: I see.

---

---

Claimant: Not Jason, a legally appointed one and they believe that you should not be at home, they believe that you should be in care and they get to choose where that care is.

---

---

Mr Godwin: So what will---

---

---

Claimant: If you keep saying---

---

---

Mr Godwin: How do I avoid that?

---

---

Claimant: If---ugh [sighs] I’m not playing these games with you Dad, okay.

---

---

Mr Godwin: No, go on. I---

---

---

Claimant: Right. No, no, no, no. I, I’ve wasted too much of my life playing games with you.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Oh, yeah. I, I put myself in your hands to get out of this mess.

---

---

Claimant: Right, fine and that’s what I’m---

---

---

Mr Godwin: So, well…what can you do for me?

---

---

Claimant: I am doing everything I can.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Right, is it happening?

---

---

Claimant: Yes, it’s moving forward, right?

---

---

Mr Godwin: Right, and…what’s the first step that I shall notice that I’m no longer here?

---

---

Claimant: …You won’t be here, you’ll be in some other place.

---

---

Mr Godwin: Right.

---

---

Claimant: I mean, it’s a silly question really. But I think there’s probably more conversations to be had with the social workers in order that they support what you want and what I want.”

---

---

1. By the end of October 2025, a Leeds social worker had assessed Mr Godwin as lacking capacity to manage his property and finances. Earlier in the month, on 7 October, Mr Godwin had signed a letter to the Family Court in Cagnes-sur-Mer, which said:

---

“On 11 August 2025, I voluntarily travelled with my eldest son, William Godwin, to the United Kingdom. Since that date, I have been habitually resident in Leeds, England, where I am integrated into the NHS and local social care system

---

---

…

---

---

…I formally request the Court to…annul the judgment of 8 September 2025 on the grounds that the French courts lack jurisdiction, since I have been habitually resident in the United Kingdom since 11 August 2025. I therefore request the Court to acknowledge formally that the Family Court of Cagnes-sur-Mer has no jurisdiction over me as a permanent resident of the United Kingdom

---

---

…

---

---

…[S]hould the court…claim jurisdiction, I request that…my son Jason Godwin be excluded entirely from any role [of guardianship], including any ability to purchase my property in France given his conflict of interest and coercive conduct”.

---

---

1. In his witness statement, the Claimant said that he was “present” when the letter was prepared and signed. His oral evidence was that he actually typed the letter, at Mr Godwin’s dictation, at the hospital, albeit he made perhaps three suggestions about phraseology, which his father adopted.

---

1. Later in October 2025, Mr Godwin apparently told Ms Martoscia and the Defendant, according to the Defendant, that he wanted to return to France as soon as possible.

---

1. The Claimant said that, also in October 2025, Mr Godwin told him that he did not think that repatriation of his body to France following his death was worth it and that to repatriate his body would be a waste of money.

---

1. Following Mr Godwin’s death on 5 November 2025, the Claimant arranged a cremation for 8 December 2025. The Claimant told me that he chose that date because it was the closest working day to what would have been Mr Godwin’s ninety-sixth birthday, although the Claimant also told me that, between 5 November and 8 December, there were only a handful of available slots for a cremation. Although the Claimant informed other family members of the arrangements, he decided not to, and did not, inform the Defendant of them.

---

The transcripts of the recorded conversations on 27 July and 1 October 2025

---

1. I have considered the circumstances in which the recordings of these conversations were made. It is apparently not in dispute that they were made surreptitiously, although the Claimant said that Mr Godwin was aware that he was being recorded on both occasions. I reject that claim so far as it relates to the 1 October 2025 conversation. The transcript does not show the Claimant informing Mr Godwin that he was being recorded. A nurse happened to be present in Mr Godwin’s hospital room at the beginning of the conversation. They are unlikely to have consented to being recorded. That they were recorded suggests that the Claimant did not announce that he was recording. There is no good reason for the conversation to have been recorded, because it was substantively only between the Claimant and Mr Godwin, and the Claimant did not volunteer a reason. I speculate that the Claimant may have had in mind to use the recording to prove to the social workers discussed at the beginning of the conversation that he was not motivated by greed. The social workers would not have changed the record of their prior discussion with Mr Godwin. Nor would they have changed their assessment based on the recording, because they could not know the circumstances in which it had been obtained.

---

1. Neither party has suggested a basis for the recordings being illegal and I am not in a position, where the parties are litigants in person, to determine whether any illegality has occurred, although there is a real danger that at least the privacy rights of participants in the recordings have been infringed. No application has been made by either party to exclude the transcripts of the recordings, or the recordings themselves, as evidence. In the particular circumstances of this case, which, by its nature, is more inquisitorial than conventional, adversarial, litigation, and because also the recordings and the transcripts do not directly inform the key issues I have to decide, I will not exclude them as evidence on my own initiative. In reaching this decision, I have taken into account Jones v. University of Warwick [2003] 1 WLR 954 at [24]ff.

---

The witnesses

---

1. For the reasons I give in this section of the judgment, I have had to approach the evidence of the parties cautiously.

---

1. The transcripts of the 27 July 2025 and 1 October 2025 conversations make dismal reading. They reveal that, by 27 July 2025, Mr Godwin was a frail and confused old man. That must have been apparent to the parties, even if only from their respective conversations themselves. In fact, the parties more or less accepted, during the hearing, that the transcripts show Mr Godwin to have been frail and confused. The transcripts also reveal that, by the end of the 27 July 2025 conversation, Mr Godwin was distressed and that, during the 1 October 2025 conversation, he was frightened. What the Defendant said to Mr Godwin in the earlier conversation distressed Mr Godwin and what the Claimant said in the later conversation (in particular, to the effect that Mr Godwin might no longer be able to count on the Claimant’s support) frightened Mr Godwin.

---

1. There is no foundation for the Defendant’s claims, made during the 27 July 2025 conversation, that:

i) the Claimant intended to put Mr Godwin in an unsuitable care home;

---

ii) at least generally, care homes in the UK “drug you up and put you in front of the television all day to keep you quiet”;

---

iii) the Claimant was going to deceive Adult Social Services about Mr Godwin’s means;

---

iv) the Claimant intended to retain the whole of Mr Godwin’s estate after Mr Godwin’s death.

---

1. There is no foundation for the Claimant’s claims, made during the 1 October 2025 conversation, that:

i) in every case when someone is under the care of a guardian in France they will be moved to care home;

---

ii) there was a plan for the Defendant to buy Mr Godwin’s home.

---

1. The Claimant’s claims that he was only “present” when the 7 October 2025 letter was prepared and signed and, differently, that he actually typed the letter, at Mr Godwin’s dictation, at the hospital, albeit that he made perhaps three suggestions about phraseology, which his father adopted, are both incredible. I attach no weight to the letter. The content of the letter, both the language and what the letter is intended to convey, is complex. By 7 October 2025, Mr Godwin lacked capacity as to certain functions at least, and, as the transcripts of the recorded discussions establish, struggled to articulate himself. He was a confused, frail, elderly man. It is incredible to suppose that he could have expressed himself in the terms of any part of the letter or that he could have articulated coherently what the letter is intended to convey. Towards the end of the 1 October 2025 conversation, Mr Godwin had forgotten that the Claimant had told him earlier in the conversation that he could not return to his home in Cagnes-sur-Mer. Yet the Claimant has asked me to accept that Mr Godwin recalled, on 7 October 2025, a French court hearing which had taken place a month before in which Mr Godwin did not participate. The language of the letter is the similar to the language the Claimant used in this claim. It also refers to the assertion the Claimant had made to Mr Godwin on 1 October 2025 that there was a plan for the Defendant to buy Mr Godwin’s home. I am sure that the letter was composed solely by the Claimant who presented it to Mr Godwin to sign. I am not satisfied that Mr Godwin understood what the letter said and, as I have said, I attach no weight to the letter.

---

1. By paragraphs 6 and 28 to 34 of District Judge Bond’s order, the witness statements for use at the hearing have had to comply with her order, in the following ways, amongst others:

i) they have had to be prepared in accordance with CPR Pt.32 and PD57AC;

---

ii) they have had to contain a complete statement of truth in proper form;

---

iii) they have had to include a signed certificate of compliance in the form required by paragraph 4.1 of PD57AC, which the District Judge set out in full in the order.

---

1. As the District Judge’s order also made clear, at paragraph 35, any non-compliant witness statements have been at risk of being excluded from the evidence or of having attributed to them reduced weight.

---

1. The Defendant and Lucie Godwin, his former wife who gave evidence for him, explained in their witness statements that they have had “limited assistance from a “digital assistant” for grammar, spelling, and “presentation”. By “digital assistant”, they meant an AI tool; ChatGPT. They claimed that they each prepared the first draft of their respective witness statements, that they each uploaded their own draft to ChatGPT and that ChatGPT’s product did not add, remove or re-arrange any words when compared to their first drafts.

---

1. There was no good reason for either the Defendant or Ms Godwin to use ChatGPT in this case. Both struck me as sophisticated people. The Defendant is a key account manager who travels in Europe making presentations for a company in the lift industry, sometimes to large businesses. Both the Defendant and Ms Godwin are sufficiently technically adept to have used ChatGPT. They must have been able to use the spelling and grammar checking facility in Word (which the Defendant used to prepare his first draft) and in whatever word processing programme Ms Godwin used to prepare her first draft. Also, the District Judge set out in detail, in paragraph 30 of her order, how the witness statements should be structured.

---

1. It is not conventional, in spoken English, to refer to an AI tool, as “a digital assistant”. I did not receive a satisfactory explanation from the Defendant about why, on his case, he chose that phrase. I cannot rule out the possibility that that is a phrase ChatGPT contributed to the witness statements. Nor can I rule out the possibility that the Defendant might have been trying to obscure his use of AI in the production of his witness statement.

---

1. I have not been provided with the first drafts.

---

1. For all these reasons, I cannot be sure that the Defendant’s, or Ms Godwin’s, witness statements are in their own words, reinforcing my decision to approach the Defendant’s evidence cautiously and requiring me to approach Ms Godwin’s evidence cautiously too.

---

1. I attach no weight to Ms Jones’ witness statement. Procedurally, it is non-compliant because it does not contain a complete statement of truth in the proper form and does not contain a certificate of compliance at all. More significantly, she did not attend the hearing even though there has been nothing stopping her from doing so. The Defendant and the court were only informed that she would not be attending at 4:40 pm the afternoon before the hearing began. Ms Jones’ evidence may have been significant in the determination of the claim, because she is someone who knew Mr Godwin a long time and because she may be an independent witness. Given the weight that her evidence may have attracted, the Defendant’s inability to cross-examine her at all and, in particular, to challenge her independence on the ground that (i) her partner is apparently owed €58,600 and (ii) William is likely to support the payment of that sum whilst the Defendant is unlikely to do so (given the Defendant’s reaction in court to learning of the apparent liability) may have put the Defendant at significant disadvantage if Ms Jones’ witness statement was given any weight.

---

1. In considering the weight to be attached to Mr Eastell’s evidence, I have kept in mind that he did not know Mr Godwin well, and only met him about two months before Mr Godwin lost capacity.

---

A burial in France

---

1. The Defendant, who lives in the Czech Republic, as do his former wife and their son, and who spoke with Mr Godwin several times a week and visited him three or four times a year, wants a Christian funeral and a burial in the Hargeville cemetery.

---

1. The Defendant wants to give effect Mr Godwin’s expression of wishes in the 2003 will. He also wants a burial in France because:

i) that is what Mr Godwin wanted, because, “on a number of occasions”, Mr Godwin told the Defendant that he wished to be buried in France (albeit I do not know when those conversations took place);

---

ii) France is the place the Defendant most closely associates with Mr Godwin. It is where he made his most abiding memories of Mr Godwin;

---

iii) an attended funeral will allow him to properly pay his respects to his father.

---

1. The Defendant has been in contact with Rowland Brothers International, which apparently is a repatriation company. The advice he has received is that:

i) from the time that a body is put in the company’s care in the UK, “the usual timeframe for a repatriation to France is 10 working days”;

---

ii) before a body can be put in the company’s care for repatriation, the company needs to obtain an Out of England Certificate from the coroner. It takes up to five working days to obtain the certificate once a certificate is requested.

---

It may also be that the advice received is that a further two days would have to elapse before a body can actually be repatriated by plane to France.

---

1. The Defendant has also been in contact with French undertakers; Pompes Funebre Lutece, which have provided a quotation, for a funeral and a burial in the Hargeville cemetery, of €4,895. It is not clear to me if this includes any payment due to a minister. The quotation makes reference to a Roman Catholic priest but it is not clear whether the French undertakers will engage a minister or whether the Defendant will have to do so.

---

1. The Defendant has reserved a burial plot for Mr Godwin in the Hargeville cemetery.

---

1. The funeral service will be conducted in French. Neither the Claimant nor the Defendant speak French. So, the Defendant will arrange for his French personal assistant to translate.

---

1. The Defendant has estimated the cost of his proposal to be £10,845. He has not taken into account the reservation fee for the burial plot of €300 or any costs relating to the funeral itself, which may extend to any payment to a minister. It is reasonable for me to assume that the cost of the Defendant’s proposal will be about £11,500.

---

1. The Defendant does not object to a burial elsewhere in France.

---

1. The Defendant travels to the UK frequently, about twice a month. At the moment, he has little reason to travel to France, although he hopes very soon to obtain the business of a very significant customer which will mean that he will be travelling to Nice about once a month.

---

1. At the conclusion of the hearing I was concerned that it may not be possible, or it may be more costly to repatriate Mr Godwin’s body to France, or that it may be more time-consuming than the repatriation company’s usual ten working days timeframe, because Mr Godwin’s body has remained undisposed of, but not fully embalmed, for so long. At my request, the Defendant emailed the repatriation company as follows immediately after the conclusion of the hearing:

---

“My father died on 5 th November 2025. He has been in the care of an undertaker since 25 th November 2025. His body has been partially but not fully embalmed.

---

---

In your 20 th March 2026 “To Whom It May Concern” letter you say, “following official activation by our client the usual timeframe for a repatriation to France is 10 working days from the day the deceased is in our care”.

---

---

In light of the information given in this email

---

---

1. Is repatriation of my father’s body to France still possible?

---

---

1. If a repatriation is possible will your 10 working days timeframe be extended, and if so,

---

---

a) by how many additional working days?

---

---

b) why is [that] so?”

---

---

1. The repatriation company responded:

---

“As previously advised the repatriation timeframe will depend on different factors.

---

---

If you win, we will:

---

---

1 request the cost from the funeral director in Leeds.

---

---

2 get the amended cost from Lutece in France.

---

---

3 send our invoice with all the above cost to your father’s bank for payment.

---

---

4 once payment is received, we will request the Out of England from the Coroner.

---

---

5 upon receipt of the Out of England we will arrange to pick up your father from the funeral director.

---

---

6 once Mr Godwin will be with us the repatriation process will take around 10 working days.

---

---

I cannot comment on how long it will take for local burial in France.

---

---

This will depend on service date, burial agreement with the cemetery etc.

---

---

Please note that you will also need to purchase the plot directly to allow Lutece to get the burial permit from the local Town Hall.”

---

That suggests a somewhat longer timeframe than the repatriation company originally advised, because it will not seek an Out of England certificate until its invoice (for at least almost all the estimated costs) has been settled.

---

Further wishes

---

1. The Claimant wants Mr Godwin to be cremated because:

i) his mother and Adrian were cremated;

---

ii) a burial is more expensive than a cremation. As matters stand, there is about £16,500 standing to the credit of Mr Godwin’s Bank of Scotland account, which is sufficient to cover the costs of the Defendant’s proposal. There is also no dispute that Mr Godwin’s estate is solvent. The Claimant’s concern is that the balance of the account, after taking into account the costs of the Defendant’s proposals (or a burial in the UK, which will be less expensive), may not cover ongoing liabilities, to utility companies for example, whilst Mr Godwin’s estate is being administered and will not cover the €58,600 the Claimant says is owed to the patent attorney;

---

iii) a cremation can be arranged quickly, an English burial will take longer, and a French burial is likely to take longer still. The Claimant said that he has been told by the Leeds undertakers that a cremation can be arranged with about four days’ notice.

---

1. The Claimant opposes a burial in the Hargeville cemetery, and will not attend a burial there. He said that the family has no connection with Hargeville, that the plot Ms Thomas reserved for Mr Godwin is not available in any event and that it is not possible to say if she will ever be buried there.

---

1. The Defendant objects to a burial in England because that would not give effect to Mr Godwin’s expression of wishes in his 2003 will and because Mr Godwin was most closely associated with France.

---

1. He opposes a cremation. I understood him to suggest that that is, in part, out of religious conviction. The Defendant is a Seventh Day Adventist. The Defendant did accept, however, that the Church does not have an official position on cremation, treating the matter as a question of personal conscience. His main objection to a cremation is an emotional one. He feels that he cannot properly commemorate his father if there is no marked grave where his father’s body is buried. Indeed, he said that he cannot think of his father being cremated.

---

1. Ms Godwin wants a funeral and burial in France, because:

i) this gives effect to Mr Godwin’s expression of wishes in the 2003 will;

---

ii) Mr Godwin’s expressed wishes reflect what he said to her many times “over many years”;

---

iii) France is the place with which she most closely associates Mr Godwin;

---

iv) a burial will allow a place for her and Michael to visit to remember Mr Godwin.

---

1. Following her divorce from the Defendant, Ms Godwin still visited Mr Godwin in Cagnes-sur-Mer, albeit irregularly and infrequently.

---

The claim and the correct legal approach to it

---

1. By the claim form, the Claimant seeks the following remedies; namely, declarations that:

i) he has lawful authority to arrange and instruct the cremation of the deceased;

---

ii) the Defendant has no lawful authority to prevent or interfere with the cremation;

---

iii) a cremation of the deceased may lawfully proceed.

---

1. I understand the Claimant’s claim to have “lawful authority” to dispose of Mr Godwin’s body to be based on the fact that he has already taken charge of arrangements.

---

1. Jervis on Coroners (15 th ed) explains, at paragraph 9-04, that:

---

“The personal representatives of the deceased, rather than members of the family as such, have the duty to arrange (and pay for) the appropriate disposal of the body, and for that purpose they also have the right to possession of it. But if there are no personal representatives, a duty to dispose of the body is cast upon other persons, such as…the person entitled to letters of administration to the deceased’s estate, even before administration is applied for…Such a duty to dispose will naturally carry with it a right to possession of the body for the purpose of discharging that duty. But there is no such duty cast on, and therefore no such right attaching to, the next of kin as such.”

---

---

1. In this case, no grant of representation has been made. I do not know whether the 2003 Will is valid under French law. Nor do I know whether, if it is, the Claimant is entitled to a grant of representation in England authorising him to dispose of Mr Godwin’s body. Where also the parties are equally entitled to letters of administration in the case of an intestacy, it is unhelpful for me to give effect to my decision by way of declarations. Rather, it is appropriate for me to appoint, under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, one of the parties as Mr Godwin’s administrator limited to the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body, which will be the basis of their authority (subject perhaps to obtaining letters of administration from a Probate Registry), and it may be appropriate for me also to make orders relating to the arrangements for the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body.

---

1. This approach to the claim is consistent with the relevant legal principles, which I now summarise.

---

1. As in this case, the court will often be presented with two competing proposals. It does not have to adopt any proposal, in whole or in part.

---

1. Where a decision is made by which one proposal is adopted in whole, in an appropriate case the court does not need to direct, in terms, that that proposal is put into effect. Rather, it can appoint the proponent as the deceased’s personal representative, if appropriate limited to the disposal of the deceased’s body, in the expectation that they will give effect to their proposal. The court can take this step under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, apparently even where the parties are equally entitled to take out a grant of representation (see Jervis at paragraph 9-11 and In Re JS (a child) [2017] 4 WLR 1 at [53]), at least until a full grant has been made (see Jakimaviciut v. HM Coroner for Westminster (unreported), 31 October 2019, at [34] cited in Ganoun v. Joshi [2020] EWHC 2743 (Ch)).

---

1. Whether or not the court decides to appoint a personal representative for the purpose of disposing of the deceased’s body, in any event it can direct how that is to be done (see Oldham MBC v. Makin [2018] Ch 543 at [80]).

---

1. In making its evaluative judgment, the court’s focus should always be on ensuring that the deceased’s body is disposed of with all proper respect and decency and without any unnecessary delay (see Hartshorne v. Gardner [2008] EWHC 3765 (Ch)).

---

1. The deceased’s own wishes will often be a weighty factor, but are not determinative of the court’s decision (see Oldham at [81]).

---

1. A court is also likely to take into account the reasonable wishes of the deceased’s family and friends. This factor may have added significance where the deceased’s own wishes are not known, because close family and friends may have a sense of what the deceased would have wanted and because the deceased may have wanted to be remembered well by them and, to that end, may have wanted their wishes to be given effect to. This may be a factor in other cases too (see Hartshorne at [9]), because the deceased’s family and friends will have their own grief and loss which the court may take into account (see Patel v. Patel [2025] EWHC 56 (Ch) at [54]).

---

1. A court may also take into account the location with which the deceased is most closely connected. This may be a significant factor in a case where the options presented to the court are in two different countries and also where the deceased’s wishes are unknown. A person may wish for their body to be disposed of in a location with which they are closely connected but, if that is remote from those who are grieving for them, that fact too might be something the court takes into account.

---

1. The list of factors which the court may take into account is not closed. Each case turns on its own facts.

---

Discussion

---

1. The cost of the arrangements for the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body should not play a significant part in my decision. As I have said, the most costly option is likely to be the Defendant’s proposal, the balance in Mr Godwin’s Bank of Scotland account is sufficient to cover the cost of that proposal and his estate is solvent. I have no evidence about the estate’s existing, or ongoing, liabilities for utilities. In particular, there is no evidence which suggests that the balance of the bank account after any full payment for the Defendant’s proposal will not cover the estate’s utility liabilities, and I have no reason to think that French utility providers are less accommodating of estates in the course of administration than their UK counterparts. As I have also said, the Claimant suggested that there is a substantial liability to the patent attorney. I have no reason to think that any liability to the patent attorney cannot be settled in the due course of the estate’s administration; particularly because what are said to be outstanding fee notes relate to work done between 2012 and 2017. I must add that, because there is no corroborating evidence, I do not accept the Claimant’s claim that Mr Godwin told him that he did not think that repatriation of his body to France following his death was worth it and that to repatriate his body would be a waste of money.

---

1. I understand that a Church of England funeral comprises two parts, except in the case where, following a cremation, the deceased’s ashes are not interred, when only the first part takes place. The first part is a religious service (“the church service”), which generally takes place in a church or a crematorium chapel, and which usually, at least, includes a sermon and can include a tribute from someone who has known the deceased. The second part is the committal, which is also a religious service during which the deceased’s body is, or ashes are, interred, in a graveyard, a crematorium garden of remembrance, or some other suitable place. When a burial takes place, the committal generally immediately follows the church service. When a cremation takes place and there is to be a committal, the committal sometimes immediately follows the church service and sometimes takes place later.

---

1. I am sure that Mr Godwin must have a religious funeral, because that is what Mr Godwin consistently wanted, and that the funeral must be open to all those who want to attend. In 2012, as the caption on the Google image shows, Mr Godwin wanted a church service. Much more recently, when he made the Mandat he said that he wanted a Christian funeral.

---

1. I gave some thought to whether any directions I give about the funeral arrangements should only require that Mr Godwin’s body or ashes have a religious committal, so allowing the church service to be dispensed with if theologically appropriate, because I expect few mourners to attend a funeral. I expect the parties to attend, together with Ms Godwin and Michael. It may be that Mr Godwin’s granddaughters do attend, although that seems unlikely, and it may be that the patent attorney and Ms Jones attend, together, if the funeral is in England, with one or more of the Claimant’s friends. That a church service may not be well attended is not a reason why it should not take place; particularly because it is likely, as I have just shown, that that is what Mr Godwin wanted.

---

1. I also gave some thought to whether, if theologically appropriate, there should be only a committal because of the complete breakdown in relations between the parties. If there is no church service, there should be no tribute to Mr Godwin by one of the parties which distresses the other. In the end, I have not concluded that directing that there will only be a committal on this ground is appropriate. The minister will decide whether one or more of the mourners may pay a tribute to Mr Godwin or whether a tribute should form part of their sermon and, having observed the parties for two days, I believe that, out of respect for their father, each will, during the funeral, be sensitive to the grief of the other, and, as I have said, Mr Godwin is likely to have wanted a church service in any event.

---

1. Mr Godwin was a member of the Church of England. I am also sure therefore that, wherever his funeral takes place, it must be officiated by a licensed minister of the Church of England, or, if the funeral takes place in France and it is not possible for a licensed minister of the Church of England to officiate, by a person authorised by another Protestant Church to perform religious funerals.

---

1. In this case, in practice, there are three principal options for the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body; namely (i) a burial in England, (ii) a cremation in England and (iii) a burial in the Hargeville cemetery.

---

1. If there is a cremation in England, if I decide to make orders of such specificity I can give one of the following directions. I can direct that Mr Godwin’s ashes are interred in a crematorium garden of remembrance or some other suitable place immediately after the church service. I can direct that there is a committal at a later date when Mr Godwin’s ashes will be interred. I can direct that Mr Godwin’s ashes are not interred but are retained by someone, or are scattered.

---

1. I have considered whether an appropriate further option is a burial in France, somewhere other than Hargeville; most likely in Cagnes-sur-Mer. As I am about to discuss, a burial in the Hargeville cemetery results in an extended timeframe for the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body, when compared to a disposal of his body in England. If it is practical to repatriate Mr Godwin’s body to France, I do not know if it is possible to bury his body in, or near, Cagnes-sur-Mer. Even if that is possible, the timeframe for the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body is likely to be extended further whilst the Defendant deals with the French local authority and obtains an estimate from an undertaker who operates in the area. (I do not know if Pompes Funebre Lutece does operate in the area). Additionally, the repatriation company is likely to have to replan the repatriation, this time to Nice airport rather than to Paris. If a burial in, or near, Cagnes-sur-Mer is possible, there likely to be significant further delay in the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body.

---

1. I have no reason to think that there is any marked difference in any waiting time for a burial in England, a cremation in England and a burial in the Hargeville cemetery. I accept that the waiting time for a cremation in England may be marginally shorter in this case, because the Claimant has made some of the arrangements. However, I do not accept that a cremation as part of a religious funeral can be arranged with about four days’ notice. There is nothing to corroborate this claim and it is not obviously consistent with the Claimant’s evidence that there were only a handful of available slots in the month following Mr Godwin’s death. It is likely that the very short timeframe for a cremation to which the Claimant referred was for an unattended cremation outside of the hours when the crematorium is open to the public. In any event, I do not think that a burial in England will lead to significant delay, because the Claimant has already engaged the Leeds undertakers, and they are already caring for Mr Godwin’s body.

---

1. By my estimation, a repatriation of Mr Godwin’s body to France, if it is possible, will extend the timeframe for the disposal of his body by about twenty five working days, or about five weeks, taking in account all the evidence from the repatriation company. That is a long extension which I need to take into account.

---

1. I accept that Mr Godwin was most closely associated with France, albeit that he lived a somewhat semi-detached life there, with few friends. I do not accept that he chose to make his home, at the end of his life, in England. As I have said, I attach no weight to the 7 October 2025 letter. The further evidence of the Claimant to similar effect is uncorroborated and is not obviously consistent with the Claimant’s evidence that, shortly before Mr Godwin came to England, he had planned only a holiday here. Nor is it obviously consistent with the fact that the note referring to a holiday in the UK was still in Mr Godwin’s home at the time of his death.

---

1. Mr Godwin would have been content for his body to be disposed of in France, although, noting Mr Eastell’s evidence, I think that, if Mr Godwin had been told, at any time, that a burial in the Hargeville cemetery was not possible, he would have been content for his body to be disposed of in England. Mr Godwin expressed a wish for his body to be buried in the Hargeville cemetery, in the 2003 will and the 2012 Google image, not because Hargeville is in France, but because he expected Ms Thomas’ body to be buried nearby too. I do not accept the Defendant’s, or Ms Godwin’s, evidence that Mr Godwin repeatedly said that he wished to be buried in France, because their evidence is uncorroborated. I cannot say that it is likely that Ms Thomas will ever be buried in the Hargeville cemetery. She may already have died and be buried elsewhere, or her circumstances or plans may have changed. I also note that, in the Mandat, Mr Godwin did not express a wish to be buried in the Hargeville cemetery as he might have been able to do.

---

1. No-one in the Godwin family has ever had any other connection with Hargeville, and I think it is unlikely that anyone will visit Mr Godwin’s grave if he is buried there. Even if the Defendant has a reason to visit France to see his hoped-for customer, he will be visiting Nice, which is over 600 miles from Hargeville. He is unlikely to make a detour of up to 1,200 miles to visit his father’s grave, and, because the Defendant does not live in France, I am not satisfied that he will otherwise make save for the most infrequent of visits to Hargeville if Mr Godwin’s body is buried there. The Defendant, who travels very regularly to the UK, is more likely to visit Mr Godwin’s grave if it is here. Also, the Claimant will not visit Hargeville but he may visit a place in England where Mr Godwin’s body or ashes are interred.

---

1. It is also possible that a funeral in France will lose some of its meaning or value if none of the likely mourners can speak French, as the Defendant, Ms Godwin and Michael cannot, and the service has to be translated.

---

1. So far I have assumed that the repatriation of Mr Godwin’s body to France is possible, or, if it is, that the extended timeframe to which I have already referred will not be extended further because of the condition of Mr Godwin’s body. The repatriation company’s response to the email sent by the Defendant immediately after the conclusion of the hearing is unhelpful. The questions asked on my behalf were not answered in terms and it is not clear to me that, when responding, the repatriation company gave any thought to the condition of Mr Godwin’s body. It is true that the response says that “the repatriation process will take around 10 working days”, but that information is at the end of a list which was irrelevant to the questions asked and seems to be an almost generic response to being asked about the process of repatriation. I have also noted that the response begins: “…the repatriation timeframe will depend on different factors”. I am therefore not sure that a repatriation of Mr Godwin’s body to France in possible or will happen without significant delay beyond the extended timeframe otherwise required for a repatriation.

---

1. Mr Godwin’s consistent wish was for his body to be buried. He said so in the 2003 will. He said so, in 2012, in the caption to the Google image and he said so in the Mandat. The Defendant wants Mr Godwin’s body to be buried and the Claimant is not opposed to the burial of bodies in principle.

---

1. Although the Claimant and Mr Eastell pointed to the closeness of Mr Godwin’s relationship with the Claimant, it is not appropriate for me to give greater weight to one party’s wishes over the other. Mr Godwin treated his sons almost equally in the 2003 will and I have no reason to think that he loved one of the parties more or less than the other.

---

Conclusion

---

1. Taking into account all I have said, I appoint the Claimant as administrator of Mr Godwin’s estate limited to the disposal of his body. It is appropriate for the Claimant to make the arrangements because, unlike the Defendant, he is in England and he has already engaged the Leeds undertakers. I also make the following orders about how Mr Godwin’s body will be disposed of:

i) his body must be buried and not cremated;

---

ii) his body must be buried in England;

---

iii) the interment of his body must take place as part of a Church of England funeral;

---

iv) the funeral must be open for anyone who wishes to attend to be able to do so;

---

v) the Claimant must extend an invitation to the funeral to the Defendant, and, through the Defendant, to Ms Godwin and Michael and, if he has contact details for them, he must also extend an invitation to the funeral to Mr Godwin’s two granddaughters;

---

vi) the Claimant must extend the invitation to the Defendant at least 7 days before the funeral takes place;

---

vii) the invitations to be extended must include the date, time and location of the funeral.

---

1. My current understanding is that the Claimant will now have to obtain from a Probate Registry letters of administration limited to the disposal of Mr Godwin’s body. However, he must take his own legal advice about (i) whether those letters of administration are required and (ii) how they may be obtained.

---

End of document

Document download options

Download PDF (373.8 KB) The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download XML The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.

Help us improve this service

Take a short survey