A local historian had identified three victims of the First World War with connections to the village but whose names did not appear on the war memorial. The petitioners sought a faculty to permit their addition.

The court was concerned that, with the effluxion of over a century since these men died, the deeply personal wishes of the deceased's family about where the deceased's name was to be inscribed were now difficult, if not impossible, to know. The court applied the following general principles:

1. i. If the name is recorded on another war memorial there will be a presumption that the decision was made by the family at the time for the name to be inscribed on that memorial, and that decision should be respected. If that other war memorial is within the diocese or close to it, the more difficult it will be to rebut the presumption;

2. ii. If the name is not recorded on any war memorial, it is only when the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there had been a mistake made at the time in omitting that name from the memorial under consideration that the application can be considered. Given the sensitivity of war memorials, both when they were erected and now, such mistakes are unlikely and the court would require strong evidence before finding that a mistake had been made.

In this case, two of the three men were clearly commemorated elsewhere and the petition in relation to them would be refused. In the third case, it appeared to the court, following its own researches, that the person identified was, in fact, the same as one commemorated nearby. However, the local historian and the petitioners were at liberty to make further submissions before that limb of the petition was finally decided. [DW]