In granting a faculty authorising a monument that could not be authorised by the incumbent in exercise of his delegated authority under the diocesan churchyards regulations, the chancellor pointed out that it was not the purpose of the regulations or of the court to suppress quality or individuality in favour of an unthinking uniformity. A memorial that differed from the conventional had to be of high quality. A memorial must not ‘strike a jarring or discordant note’ and must not detract from the overall appearance and setting of the churchyard. In the present case, reservations as to the details of the design of the monument expressed by the Diocesan Advisory Committee were a matter of taste and degree. The monument was of a design and appearance that was appropriate in the churchyard, which already had similar monuments dating from the eighteenth century. A departure from what was permitted under the regulations was justified. [Alexander McGregor]