BACHA -v- CORDERO JIMENEZ [2026] WASC 352

[2026] WASC 352 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : BACHA -v- CORDERO JIMENEZ [2026] WASC 352 CORAM : LUNDBERG J HEARD : 21 AUGUST 2026 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : CIV 2119 of 2026 BETWEEN : MARIELI DEL CARMEN BACHA Plaintiff AND CARLOS JOSE CORDERO JIMENEZ Defendant Catchwords: Estates - Disputes as to person who should have carriage of burial or cremation process and custody and control of ashes - Urgent interim application brought - Turns on own facts Legislation: Administration Act 1903 (WA), s 4, s 14 Coroners Act 1996 (WA), s 29(1) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 52 r 2 Wills Act 1970 (WA), s 7 -- 1 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 Page 2 Result: Orders made to authorise cremation process, and to prevent either party taking possession of the ashes or accessing the GoFundMe account. Further hearing to be listed to determine custody and possession of the deceased's ashes. Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : In Person Defendant : In Person Solicitors: Plaintiff : In Person Defendant : In Person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Britt v Office of the State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75 Brown v Weidig [2023] NSWSC 281 Dayman v Dayman [2024] NSWSC 838 Privet v Vovk [2003] NSWSC 1038 Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASCA 76 -- 2 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 Page 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Ms Hannah Lucia Cordero Ruiz ................................................................................................. 4 Why has there been a delay? ...................................................................................................... 5 The application filed by the plaintiff .......................................................................................... 5 Disposition .................................................................................................................................. 8 Conclusion and orders .............................................................................................................. 10 -- 3 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 4 LUNDBERG J: Introduction 1 These reasons concern an urgent application as to which family member should have carriage of the final stages of the cremation process of the deceased, and who should have control and custody of the ashes of the deceased. 2 There is no question that the court has jurisdiction in respect of matters such as the present, involving competing claims by relatives as to who should have carriage of a funeral and custody of the ashes in the event of a cremation.1 3 The exercise of that jurisdiction by the court is to be approached by reference to well-established principles.2 It is presently unnecessary to set out all of the applicable principles in these reasons. It is sufficient to note that where the competing claims are evenly balanced, practical considerations may be a significant factor in the exercise of the court's discretion.3 Ms Hannah Lucia Cordero Ruiz 4 The deceased person in question is Ms Hannah Lucia Cordero Ruiz. I will refer to her as Hannah in these reasons, intending no disrespect in doing so. 5 On 2 July 2026, Hannah tragically passed away at her home in Perth, at the age of 17 years and six months. That was some seven weeks ago. Hannah died intestate.4 6 Hannah's mother is Ms Marieli Del Carmen Bacha.5 Ms Bacha presently resides in Perth. 7 Hannah's father is Mr Carlo Jose Cordero Jimenez, who resides in Mérida, in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He is a citizen of that country. Mr Cordero Jimenez has indicated that he is the recorded next of kin with the Coroner's Office. 1 Britt v Office of the State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75 (Britt); Administration Act 1903 (WA), s 4 and s 45. 2 Britt [52] - [56] (Mitchell JA, Murphy and Beech JJA agreeing). 3 Britt [57] (Mitchell JA, Murphy and Beech JJA agreeing). 4 Recognising that a person under 18 years of age cannot generally not execute a valid will in any event: Wills Act 1970 (WA), s 7. 5 Ms Bacha is also identified in the documents as 'Marieli Del Carmen Ruiz Pena'. -- 4 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 5 8 Hannah had connections with both Venezuela and the Republic of Colombia through her family and her nationality. Hannah had however migrated to Australia from Venezuela on 9 November 2019, and had become an Australian citizen by naturalisation on 27 February 2025. Since November 2019, Hannah's primary carer has been her mother, in Perth. 9 On 10 July 2026, a certificate was issued by the State Coroner pursuant to s 29(1) of the Coroner's Act 1996 (WA), permitting the burial, cremation or other disposal of Hannah's body to proceed. From that point, there was no remaining legal impediment to Hannah's funeral arrangements being concluded. 10 A funeral ceremony was subsequently held on 29 July 2026, in Perth. However, no burial or cremation has yet been undertaken, with Hannah's body remaining in the custody of a funeral home. Why has there been a delay? 11 The explanation for this delay is that Hannah's biological parents are presently in dispute as to which of them should have carriage of the remaining funeral process, and which of them should have custody and control of their daughter's ashes, in the event she is cremated. 12 In general terms, the parents appear to be in agreement that Hannah ought be cremated, but there is plainly a level of distrust between them as to the various details which would be involved in the process, including the manner in which certain funds, accumulated through a crowdfunding initiative, may be used.6 There are also indications that Hannah's father considers certain matters concerning the funeral process have been concealed from him, and that he has been hindered in his access to information. I am not in a position to form a view as to the accuracy or significance of these matters. The application filed by the plaintiff 13 The court has now been asked by the plaintiff, Hannah's mother, to intervene in, and resolve, this dispute. Late on 19 August 2026, an urgent application was filed by Ms Bacha. The named defendant to that proceeding is Hannah's father. 14 The urgent application filed by Ms Bacha was supported by a sworn affidavit dated 19 August 2026. Ms Bacha has explained that 6 A public fundraising campaign was established, through GoFundMe. -- 5 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 6 Hannah's body has remained in the care of the funeral home 'because the parties have not agreed on arrangements concerning the custody, division, destination and costs of dealing with her ashes'. 15 In her affidavit material, Ms Bacha refers to the proposed deed provided to her by the defendant, on 27 July 2026. That is a very formal document, entitled 'Final Binding Deed of Agreement: 100% Repatriation Proposal'. The proposed deed, which Ms Bacha did not sign, records and proposes the following matters, among others: (a) that Mr Cordero Jimenez consented to Hannah's cremation; (b) that the entirety of Hannah's ashes be placed in the custody of Mr Cordero Jimenez; (c) that Ms Bacha will renounce any right to retain any portion of the ashes; (d) that Ms Bacha should personally travel to Bogota, Colombia,7 to deliver the ashes, or arrange and pay for a professional courier to do so; (e) that Ms Bacha will bear sole personal financial liability for international transport, consular paperwork, courier services and related logistics; and (f) that the GoFundMe funds be used for international repatriation, with other use characterised in the document as misuse or diversion of funds. 16 Ms Bacha says that she is not financially able to assume an unlimited obligation for the travel, international transport, consular, courier or other personal expenses. Ms Bacha deposes that she has not refused to allow the defendant to have a connection with Hannah's ashes. Rather, her position is that 'the arrangements should be fair, practical, proportionate and capable of being implemented without leaving Hannah's remains indefinitely in funeral care'. 17 In her application to this court, Ms Bacha sought interim orders to allow for the cremation of Hannah's body to 'proceed promptly while preserving both parties positions by placing the ashes in sealed, neutral custody pending written agreement between the parties or further order of the Court'. Sensibly, Ms Bacha did not seek, at this juncture, any 7 Being a convenient location close to Venezuela, which would allow Hannah's father to collect the ashes. -- 6 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 7 interim orders concerning the distribution of the ashes to her or to the defendant. 18 In essence, Ms Bacha favoured an approach by which, after the parties have had a further opportunity to discuss the issue, Hannah's ashes would be divided equally between Mr Cordero Jimenez and her, and each of them would arrange and pay for the transport of that parent's portion of the ashes. Ms Bacha resisted the idea that she would be required to pay for the international repatriation of Hannah's ashes to Venezuela or Colombia. 19 The application was listed by the court at short notice, given the circumstances, and Mr Cordero Jimenez was given notice by email of the hearing. That prompted a request from him, by email, for an adjournment of the hearing so he could arrange legal representation.8 20 The court subsequently made arrangements for Mr Cordero Jimenez to be permitted to attend the hearing by video link, with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter, recognising that the 12 hour time difference between Perth and Venezuela presented him with some logistical issues. The court was also mindful that the country of Venezuela had been the subject of recent political and geological crises, which may have impacted Mr Cordero Jimenez's ability to communicate with Australia and to attend to this matter. 21 Subsequent to the request for an adjournment, Mr Cordero Jimenez filed with the court an unsworn affidavit and various attachments, setting out his position.9 Mr Cordero Jimenez explained in the document that the plaintiff's proposal, for division of Hannah's ashes: …directly contradicts the deep wish expressed by my late daughter prior to her passing - a crucial intention originally reflected and documented in the public text of the GoFundMe campaign before being subsequently modified to suppress her direct wish to return. Furthermore, a division of remains does not provide a respectful, dignified, or culturally appropriate final resting arrangement, with full international repatriation to Venezuela being the sole means to honor her final wishes and direct lineage. 22 The hearing proceeded at 3.00pm Perth time on Friday, 21 August 2026, which was 3.00am in Venezuela. The court heard oral submissions from both parents over the course of almost two hours. 8 Email from the defendant to the court sent on 20 August 2026 at 9.36pm Perth time 9 Email from the defendant to the court sent on 21 August 2026 at 11.56am Perth time. -- 7 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 8 Disposition 23 It has been observed that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the court must properly respect the dignity of the deceased as well as the emotional well-being of the parents, relatives and other loved ones of the deceased. Any dispute as to the disposal of human remains will be 'a critical yet sensitive issue', often arising 'in acute circumstances', which must be dealt with compassionately by the court, in an empathetic manner.10 24 I would think the community generally, across all ethnicities and religions, would have an expectation that deceased persons ought be treated with as much respect as can be permitted in the circumstances, which would include ensuring the timely completion of their funeral arrangements, appropriately tailored to any religious beliefs of both the deceased and the family of the deceased. 25 I would echo the observations of Bryson J that it is 'the court's duty in the public interest to see to the decent disposal of human remains and to do so as early as may be possible, so as to avoid or minimise scandal and indecency associated with delay'.11 26 Such matters strongly militated in favour of an approach, in the present circumstances, by which the court would endeavour to first resolve, as a priority, the most pressing and emotional issues arising in the circumstances. 27 As I explained to the parties at the hearing, the delay of some seven weeks since Hannah's death is a concerning matter and there was an evident need for Hannah's funeral arrangements to be completed without further delay. Both parents recognised the undesirability of the delay to date, and I proceeded on the basis that they both embraced the importance of avoiding more delays from this point. 28 In the present case, the most pressing and emotional issue was the finalisation of Hannah's funeral arrangements. 29 Two other considerations loomed large in the present case, as well. One of those was the existence of disputed factual issues, including as to Hannah's wishes as to the ultimate resting place for her remains, and as to the primary purpose of the GoFundMe account. Another 10 Dayman v Dayman [2024] NSWSC 838 [2] (Meek J); Brown v Weidig [2023] NSWSC 281 [28] (Lindsay J). 11 Privet v Vovk [2003] NSWSC 1038 [6]. -- 8 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 9 consideration was the short notice which had been given to Mr Cordero Jimenez, who was appearing by video link from Venezuela at a problematic time of the day from his perspective. 30 For these reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated to the parties that the most appropriate course to follow would be: (a) to first address the carriage and timing of Hannah's cremation, as well as the parties' immediate ability to access the GoFundMe account; and (b) to hold over any resolution of the competing claims to custody and possession of Hannah's ashes, so that that more complex issue could be addressed at a second hearing. 31 Ultimately, it seemed to me that both parties were content for the funeral arrangements to be completed as soon as possible, and for that to occur by way of cremation, in Perth. Additionally, and importantly, there were no indications that this approach would be inconsistent with Hannah's wishes. 32 Both parents have strong claims, as a matter of law and from a familial perspective,12 to assume the carriage of those remaining aspects of the funeral service for Hannah, but the practical considerations pointed strongly in favour of that process being managed by Ms Bacha, who has been directly dealing with the funeral home. 33 The presence of Ms Bacha in this jurisdiction is an important consideration, allowing her to be directly involved with the funeral home to coordinate the cremation process. That is not to diminish the role of Hannah's father. Mr Cordero Jimenez demonstrated his emotional connection to Hannah at the hearing, as of course did Ms Bacha, and it is plain to the court that the grieving process, for both of them, is continuing. 34 In the interim, I indicated I would order that: (a) Ms Bacha is to organise and have carriage of the cremation process for Hannah, with the cremation to be undertaken as soon as is practicable; 12 Having regard to the Administration Act 1903 (WA), s 14(1), item 7 of the Table. -- 9 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 10 (b) Hannah's ashes would remain in the custody and possession of either the funeral home or the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board, whichever was able to do so; and (c) neither the plaintiff nor the defendant would be permitted to take custody or possession of Hannah's ashes, until further order of the court. 35 Further, to preserve the position of both parties, and not foreclose the use of the funds in the GoFundMe account in due course by either party, I ordered that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant would be permitted to access, spend or disburse those funds unless they had the written consent of the other party, or an order of the court authorising the use of those funds. 36 Orders to preserve Hannah's ashes and the funds in the GoFundMe account fall within the established jurisdiction of the court to preserve the subject matter of proceedings.13 Conclusion and orders 37 The court made orders accordingly, and informed the parties that a further hearing would be listed to permit the court to hear further submissions in order to resolve the competing claims to custody and possession of Hannah's ashes. 13 Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASCA 76 [149]; Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 52 r 2. -- 10 of 11 -- [2026] WASC 352 LUNDBERG J Page 11 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. IR Associate to the Hon Justice Lundberg 24 AUGUST 2026 -- 11 of 11 --