The petitioner sought permission to introduce a memorial headstone commemorating two members of a family whose remains had been cremated and scattered elsewhere. The proposed headstone would be positioned among other graves of family members.

The DAC identified four principal objections: the deceased had chosen to have their ashes scattered, making it impossible to know whether they would have desired churchyard commemoration; picturesque Lake District churchyards should reserve available space for actual burials rather than family memorials; individual memorials following ash scattering are strongly discouraged across the Diocese; and the proposed stone with silver lettering would take years to weather.

As the deceased’s ashes were not buried in the churchyard, the usual basis for memorial placement was absent. The court considered precedents from other dioceses, distinguishing Re St Guthlac, Market Deeping [2024] ECC Lin 2, where inscription was added to an existing stone for someone buried elsewhere; and Re St Nicholas, Tackley [2022] ECC Oxf 4, concerning a soldier known to be buried somewhere within the relevant churchyard. Neither case involved introducing new stones for persons buried entirely elsewhere.

The petition was refused, on the basis particularly that there was no positive evidence the deceased wished to be commemorated in the proposed manner, having chosen ash scattering elsewhere rather than churchyard burial.

A modified proposal emerged during proceedings to add a white marble plaque to an existing headstone rather than erect a new memorial. The Chancellor noted provisionally that this faced the same fundamental difficulties, and additionally would contravene Diocesan Graveyard Regulations prohibiting marble memorials. The incumbent would lack delegated authority to approve such a proposal.