The law is contained in the Fatal Accidents Act of 1976 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1934.
1. Expenses incurred before death
The LRMPA allows the recovery of funeral expenses under section 1(2)(c) which provides that the deceased’s estate claim them. In addition, other expenses may also be claimed under the LRMPA. These are limited to what the deceased himself could have claimed if he had lived. Section 1(1) of the LRMPA states:
Subject to the provisions of this section regarding the death of any person after the entry into force of this Act, all causes of action that subsist against you will survive against or, as the case may be, for the benefit of your estate.
2. Definition of “funeral expenses”
“Funeral expenses” are not defined in any of the laws. The jurisprudence does not give us an exhaustive definition either. What is clear from the case law is that in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the LRMPA 1934, funeral expenses must be ‘reasonable in all circumstances’. The test appears to be the same under both laws. Relevant circumstances will include the deceased’s social position, occupation, and racial origin (Goldstein v. The Salvation Army Guarantee Society [1917] 2KB 291; Hart vs. Griffiths-Jones [1948] 2 All ER 729 at 731 by Streatfield J; Gammell vs. Wilson [1982] AC 27, [1980] 2 All ER 557, CA).
Some examples of what has been considered (a) a funeral expense and (b) a reasonable or unreasonable funeral expense through case law include:
reasonable
Saint George vs. Turner [2003] CLY 936 – an exceptional case in which damages were recovered for funeral expenses in Japan in excess of £50,000, including a Buddhist family altar and accessories; funeral expenses; the cost of a Buddhist renaming ceremony for the dead; attendance fees for Buddhist monks; a tombstone and works; a memorial day reception; and an anniversary reception. A Japanese woman had been murdered by her English husband. McGregor on Damages comments on this case “This is believed to be too extreme to defend; even murder cannot influence the level of funeral cost recovery.”
Smith v Marquesa/Bowbelle (January 27, 1993) – A reception was allowed as reasonable. “A claimant cannot ignore the social obligation to provide some refreshments to the guests.” Social decency must be observed and the £400 spent was recovered. See also St George v Turner (10 May 2003, unreported). Contrast Gammell vs. Wilson [1982] AC 27, AC
Gammell v Wilson (at first instance) – a tombstone or tombstone would be considered a reasonable expense. In addition, reasonable funeral expenses may include the costs of a burial in another country if that is where the deceased came from (see also Saint George vs. Turner up)
Schneider vs. Eisovitch [1960] 2QB 430 – the expenses of two relatives who traveled to France to organize the return of the body (of the brother) were reasonable. Paull J ruled that the services provided had to be necessary and since the expenses would have occurred anyway, they were reasonable.
Hart vs. Griffiths Jones [1948] 2 All ER 729 – Embalming the body of a four-year-old was a reasonable expense.
Goldstein v. The Salvation Army Guarantee Society [1917] 2KB 291 – the cost of a tombstone was reasonable.
Unreasonable
Harding vs. Scott-Moncrieff [2004] EWHC 1733 (QB) – burial expenses did not include funeral expenses, attorney’s fees, accountants’ fees, and an appraiser’s report.
Quainoo v. Brent and Harrow Area Health Authority (1982) 132 NLJ 1100 Y Gammell vs. Wilson [1982] AC 27, AC– the expenses of an overly elaborate wake failed.
Gammell vs. Wilson [1982] AC 27, AC – The Court of Appeal upheld, with some hesitation, the trial judge’s award of £595 for a headstone in respect of a funeral that had taken place in 1976. A member of the court observed that “the tombstone… in this case it was very close to the border between a tombstone and a monument”. The Court of Appeal approved the approach that “there is a distinction between a tombstone that tops, describes and marks the grave, which is part of the funeral expense, and a memorial, which is not.” The expenses of an elaborate wake and mourning clothes were unrecoverable.
Stanton v Ewart F Youldon Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 429, [1960] 1 WLR 543 – the expense for a memorial or monument was unreasonable in the circumstances, but a simple tombstone would be allowed. McNairJ said:‘The legal position is that a stone placed on a grave can be considered as part of the funeral expenses if it is a reasonable expense for the persons in the position of the deceased and the relatives who are responsible for ordering the stone. ; but insofar as it is a mere memorial raised as a sign of love and affection, then it should not be included.has”
The claim also included £5 paid to the minister for attending the funeral, £8 for two additional limousines at the funeral and £5 for bringing the body home. These payments were also included as reasonable funeral expenses in the recovered damages.
Unfortunately, there is no definitive definition of funeral expenses, or more importantly, reasonable funeral expenses. When considering these elements in a fatal accident claim, an attempt will be made to consider the jurisprudence and the two acts as a guide, and issue a reasoned judgment based on it.