Graves

A couple who did not live in the parish and whose only connection with the parish was that their granddaughter had attended the nursery and primary school there, applied to reserve a grave space in the churchyard. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: "As the applicants have no real connection to this church, and have no right to be buried in the churchyard, and have no wish for a Christian funeral, I am not satisfied that any case is made out for the reservation of a burial plot in this case."

In December 2015 the Chancellor granted a Faculty reserving a gravespace for the petitioners, who were not residents in the parish. The Chancellor placed a limit of 12 years on the reservation, as it was expected that the churchyard would be full within 12 years, and the Chancellor did not wish to prejudice the rights of burial of parishioners and others with a

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the reservation of a grave space for the petitioner's mother (not a parishioner), there being only four or five empty grave spaces left in the churchyard.

Two sisters of a man who had recently died wished, in accordance with his alleged wishes, to have his ashes interred in the grave of his former wife. Other members of the family objected to the proposal, without becoming parties opponent in the proceedings, alleging that the deceased’s wife had been a victim of domestic abuse from her husband (from whom she had been divorced on the grounds of his abuse) and that it was not therefore appropriate for his remains to be buried with hers. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty because the interment of the deceased’s ashes in the grave of the his late wife “would become a cause of distress or conflict, or a focus of grievance, between family members, and those attending to mourn at [his late wife’s] graveside.”

The petitioners wished to reserve a double grave in the churchyard extension. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited it to 10 years, having been advised that the churchyard was likely to have space for burials for only the next 10 years. The Chancellor concluded her judgment by saying: "It remains open to the petitioners to apply at any time for an extension of the 10-year period, for example, should their personal circumstances change or in the event that more space becomes available in the churchyard such as by the consecration of an extension to the churchyard or a policy on re-use of older graves being adopted."

The petitioners applied to reserve a double grave in the churchyard extension.  The churchyard was likely to have space for burials for only the next 10 years. Although the petitioners did not live in the parish and did not therefore have a legal right to be buried in the churchyard, the application was supported by the Incumbent and Churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limiting the reservation of the grave to 10 years, taking the view that, "in the circumstances of this case it is not right to grant a faculty for longer than the churchyard is likely to remain open." The Chancellor left it open to the petitioners to apply for an extension in 10 years' time.

In 1997 the deceased had requested the reservation of the grave at the foot of the grave of her late husband. Owing to an administrative mistake the wrong plot number was allocated, but the deceased did not realise that the grave number was incorrect. At the funeral, the family realised that the grave for the deceased had been dug in the wrong place, but felt unable to do other than proceed with the funeral. They subsequently sought a faculty for exhumation and reinterment in the intended grave. The Chancellor was satisfied that a genuine mistake had been made, which could be regarded as an exception to the presumption of permanence of burial. He therefore granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment, in order to correct the error.

The petitioner, who lived in Oxfordshire, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard at Heptonstall in West Yorkshire, due to "her affection for literature and the proximity of the grave of Sylvia Plath". The priest-in-charge and Parochial Church Council had no objections to the reservation. There were in excess of 450 grave spaces available, and burials averaged five per year. After a discussion of the principles which a Chancellor should consider when deciding whether to exercise a discretion to grant a faculty to someone who had no legal right to be buried in a churchyard, the Chancellor determined that in this case there was no reason to refuse a faculty.

The petitioner's brother had died in 1982, aged 26, and was buried in the churchyard. His widow had subsequently had another partner for over 30 years, but had always wished to be buried in the same grave as her late husband. In 2001, the petitioner's mother had died, and her ashes were interred in her son's grave. The widow accepted this interment at the time, as she believed that the grave was single depth, and that she would have to be buried in the adjoining grave, which she believed her father-in-law had reserved for her. When her father-in-law died, the petitioner wished her father's ashes to be buried with the ashes of his wife in their son's grave. The son's widow objected, as she had discovered that the grave was double depth, and she thought that any further interment of ashes would inhibit her own burial in her late husband's grave.  The Chancellor determined that the petitioner's father's ashes could be buried in his son's grave in such a position as not to inhibit the interment of the widow's body in due course and that, if the widow were to petition to reserve a right to burial in the grave, a faculty would be granted.

The petitioner applied for a faculty giving her the right to be buried in the same grave as her former partner, with whom she had lived for 25 years until his death in 1986. The family of the deceased's first partner, who died in 1957, objected to the petitioner having the right to be buried in the same grave as their father, there having been a division between the two families. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty: "In my judgment the dispute between the parties weighs in favour of non-intervention."