The petitioner sought a faculty for the installation of a memorial stone and kerb stones around the grave of her late husband. The memorial stone was uncontroversial. The petitioner proposed kerb stones that would lie flush with the ground, to avoid any difficulties of mowing and maintenance.

The court regarded the principal objection to kerbs not to be one of practicality. Rather, the use of kerbs created a tight delineation between the grave and the rest of the churchyard, creating a series of individual memorial plots, bounded and set apart, grave by grave, from the rest of the churchyard. This was antithetical to the principle that the churchyard as a whole was a place set apart for sacred use in perpetuity; the graves and churchyard should meld together with the fabric of the church building around which they were all set, so that the whole became a place at peace with itself. A faculty would be issued, but would be limited to the proposed headstone only. [DW]