The cremated remains of the petitioners’ mother had been interred in the grave of her first husband. While the headstone from that grave had been removed by the petitioners to allow the addition of an inscription in relation to their mother, her second husband caused a second memorial to be erected over the grave which did not refer to the presence of her first husband's remains. The original memorial was then erected at the foot of the grave. The petitioners sought a faculty for the removal of the new memorial. The second husband objected. Relations between all concerned were very poor.

The chancellor considered how to deal with the question of how to commemorate the deceased when no consensus could be reached between surviving family members. Memorials should be consistent with the need for a churchyard to be a seemly resting place; the memorial should not be a source of dispute, offence or controversy; and it was inappropriate for there to be the inclusion of reference to one bereaved person to the deliberate exclusion of another who was equally worthy of mention. It was perfectly acceptable for a memorial to be silent as to the relationships of the deceased. The chancellor noted that there should be a single memorial at the point of interment to the person interred. To have more than one might draw attention to discord and controversy. He granted a faculty for the removal of the new memorial subject to the condition that it not be removed until the petitioners had filed at the registry an agreement to include in the original memorial an additional agreed inscription which reflected their mother's marriage to her second husband. In the event that such agreement was not reached, the chancellor would invite the archdeacon to petition for a faculty for the removal of both memorials and their replacement with a single headstone bearing wording directed by the court. [RA]