header-logo header-logo

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust: property rights in body parts

14 May 2021 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7932 / Categories: Features , Property , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail
48976
Mark Pawlowski considers whether English law recognises property rights in a dead body or bodily parts
  • English and Commonwealth caselaw on the recognition of dead bodies, body parts and bodily products as ‘property’.

The general rule is that when a human being dies, property in their body does not vest in anyone, although certain persons have duties, and thus rights, with respect to it. In Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659, at p664, Kay J stated: ‘The law of this country recognises no property in a corpse’. It is for this reason that testamentary directions with regard to the disposal of one’s corpse (‘I wish to be cremated and my ashes scattered . . .’) are, at best, precatory.

In Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 474, the Court of Appeal confirmed the orthodox view that, subject to certain limited exceptions, there is no property in a dead body under English law. The case concerned a claim

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll