The petitioner sought to introduce a memorial to her husband that was not permitted by the diocesan churchyard regulations: a ledger stone raised above the level of the grass rather than set into the ground. The rector indicated that she would object, and had previously refused similar applications, but, as she was leaving the diocese, she would leave the matter with the churchwardens. However, being outside the churchyard regulations, the decision was not in the incumbent's jurisdiction and there were already several similar ledger stones in the churchyard, including one recently approved by the same incumbent. The churchwarden became a party opponent, on the basis that the stone sought had been rejected by the incumbent, who was applying the rules, and that the incumbent had been told to apply the rules by the archdeacon. The court held that the objections disclosed no real prospect of success as they did little more than state the need to abide by the churchyard regulations, by which the decision about the ledger stone lay with the court.

The Faculty Jurisdiction Rules require the court to further the overriding objective by managing cases actively, including ‘deciding promptly which issues (if any) need full investigation and a hearing in court and accordingly disposing of others summarily or on consideration of written representations’ (Rule 1(4)(2)(c)). However, they lack provisions equivalent to Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules or the jurisdiction to strike out a case. The court therefore, as required by Rule 20(5), took note of the test set out in Rule 24(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, that summary judgment may be given if a party has no real prospect of succeeding in either bringing or defending a claim, or on a particular issue.

It remained for the petitioner to make her case, applying the test in Re St Saviour, Ringley [2018] ECC Man 3, namely, whether she had shown ‘a good and substantial reason why it should be so approved’. The existence in a churchyard of similar memorials did not provide a precedent, as each application was decided on its own merits. However, the number of earlier ledger stones reduced the detrimental effect of another such memorial. In this case there was also a need to protect the church's reputation and to avoid unfair inconsistency in the application of the rules. Accordingly, the faculty was granted. The court refrained from imposing a costs order on the churchwardens as they were simply doing their best to uphold the regulations, had not fully understood the law and were not responsible for the former incumbent's inconsistency of practice. [Catherine Shelley]