Greathead v Greathead

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff applied for a declaration of presumed death under the Presumption of Death Act 2013 in respect of his son, who disappeared on 17 November 2005 in Sidmouth, Devon, and has not been heard of since. The claim form was issued on 13 March 2017 under CPR Part 8, initially in the Queen's Bench Division, Exeter District Registry, but was transferred to the Chancery Division, Bristol District Registry, due to jurisdictional rules. The Plaintiff served notice on the missing person's close relatives and an insurance company, who either acknowledged service without defending or declined to participate. The claim was also advertised in a local newspaper as required by statute and court rules, with a brief delay for publication time extended by the court. The missing person had a history of mental illness, depression, and suicidal ideation, with several past suicide attempts and hospital admissions. He disappeared without personal effects, money, or means of communication, and despite extensive searches and media coverage, no trace has been found for over 11 years. The Plaintiff and family now accept the missing person must be presumed dead and seek a court declaration accordingly.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to make a declaration of presumed death under the Presumption of Death Act 2013, considering domicile and habitual residence of the missing person.
2. Whether the statutory requirements for notice and advertisement of the claim have been properly complied with.
3. Whether the evidence satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that the missing person has died, justifying a declaration of presumed death.
4. The appropriate date and time to record as the presumed death of the missing person.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first confirmed jurisdiction under section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013, finding that the missing person was habitually resident in England throughout the relevant period and that the Plaintiff, as the father, had standing to apply. The court analysed the procedural compliance with CPR rules regarding service of notice on interested persons and advertisement of the claim, noting a minor delay in publication but exercising discretion to extend time accordingly.

On the substantive issue, the court applied the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, to assess whether the missing person had died. The court considered the missing person's mental health history, previous suicide attempts, lack of personal effects upon disappearance, adverse weather conditions, and the absence of any trace despite extensive searches. The court concluded it was more likely than not that the missing person died shortly after disappearance, possibly by suicide or accidental death, and that the body was not found due to environmental factors.

The court also addressed the procedural anomaly of naming the missing person as a defendant, clarifying that such claims do not require defendants but rather notice to potential intervenors, and suggested future claims avoid naming the missing person as a defendant.

Finally, the court fixed the presumed date and time of death as midnight on the day of disappearance, consistent with the evidence and statutory requirements.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the declaration of presumed death in respect of the missing person, declaring that he is presumed to have died at midnight on 17 November 2005.

This decision legally recognizes the death of the missing person for all purposes, allowing the Plaintiff and family to resolve related legal and personal matters. No new precedent was established, and the ruling follows established principles under the Presumption of Death Act 2013 and relevant procedural rules.