Dianne Levinson & Anor v Janis Franzer Cross & Ors

Dianne Levinson & Anor v Janis Franzer Cross & Ors

The applicants failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of interim injunctive relief, as there was insufficient urgency, the evidence supporting the presence of remains was thin, and the applicants' conduct (deception, harassment, threats) was egregious and directly connected to the relief sought, engaging the clean hands doctrine. The court refused the application for interim relief.

Parties
Applicant: Dianne Levinson; Applicant: Ian McKay; Respondent: Janis Franzer Cross; Respondent: Madeleine Elizabeth Morgan Higson; Respondent: Persons Unknown who are in occupation and/or with a right to occupy the paved area of the rear garden of 445A and 447A Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 9QH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Interim Relief Application Prior to Substantive Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Common Law Right to Burial, Possession of Human Remains, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Clean Hands Doctrine
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Interim Injunctions Common Law Right to Burial Possession of Human Remains Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Clean Hands Doctrine

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dianne Levinson

Applicant

Ian McKay

Applicant

Janis Franzer Cross

Respondent

Madeleine Elizabeth Morgan Higson

Respondent

Persons Unknown who are in occupation and/or with a right to occupy the paved area of the rear garden of 445A and 447A Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 9QH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Interim Relief Application Prior to Substantive Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a common law right to enter private property to search for and recover human remains for burial
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant interim injunctive relief permitting a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the respondents' property
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct disentitles them to equitable relief under the clean hands doctrine

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of interim injunctive relief, as there was insufficient urgency, the evidence supporting the presence of remains was thin, and the applicants' conduct (deception, harassment, threats) was egregious and directly connected to the relief sought, engaging the clean hands doctrine. The court refused the application for interim relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Relief sought by the applicants is refused
  • Application for interim injunction is dismissed