In 2018, the respondent (the publican of an inn adjoining the churchyard) had cut down trees on the boundary and carried out works to trees in the churchyard, depositing debris in the churchyard and filling in the boundary dyke. The Registrar wrote to the respondent requiring him to petition for a faculty and desist from further work on the boundary, without reply. The chair of the Parish Council, which was responsible for maintaining the churchyard, then applied under FJR rule 16.2 for an injunction, preventing the respondent from: (a) lopping or felling any further trees on the boundary; (b) erecting any boundary demarcation that had not been approved by the court; and (c) taking any further steps to fill in the boundary dyke. An interim injunction was granted.

Following the submission of evidence from the respondent indicating a change of approach, proceedings were stayed (save for the interim injunction) to allow the Archdeacon to explore an agreed solution. The location of the boundary was agreed between the parties; it was marked on the ground with a cord, which was photographed; and a plan showing the boundary was drawn up by an independent surveyor and agreed. The dyke, which fell beyond the agreed boundary, was removed from the injunction. While the court was confident that there would be no repeat of the respondent's behaviour, the remainder of the injunction was made permanent, to provide clarity about the consequences of any breach. The order would be made final after an interval for the PCC and DAC to make any submissions that they wished to. In turn, the PCC was reminded that if it wished to re-establish the boundary with a fence, it would be necessary to obtain a faculty; if a hedge was to be planted, a faculty would be advisable. [DW]