The petitioners had obtained planning permission and listed building consent in relation to a development which consisted primarily of the extension of Warwick Hall, which was used as a church hall and was situated on unconsecrated land belonging to the parochial church council adjoining the churchyard. A faculty was sought for those ancillary works which affected the churchyard, including some paving and the opening up of new entrances in the boundary wall between the church and Warwick Hall.

The parties opponent objected to the ancillary works, especially the new openings in the wall, arguing that the proposed extension to Warwick Hall could be achieved in a way which had a far more limited impact on the fabric and setting of the Grade I listed churchyard. The petitioners amended their petition to exclude the works to the boundary wall and argued that the wall lay entirely upon unconsecrated land within the property of Warwick Hall and as such was not subject to the faculty jurisdiction. The boundary was disputed.

The chancellor held that a consistory court was able to determine the line of a boundary if it was necessary to do so to enable the court to decide whether the proposed works were subject to the court's jurisdiction. The court examined all of the available evidence and held that, on the balance of probabilities, the boundary wall stood on land exclusively belonging to Warwick Hall and was therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. A faculty was granted for the remaining ancillary works. [RA]