Re All Saints Broughton [2026] ECC Lee 1

The petition concerns a memorial which was unlawfully introduced into the churchyard of All Saints, Broughton on a date unknown in December 2025 [1]. It was brought in the name of Mrs Janet Watson, widow of Mr Ian Watson over whose grave the memorial was erected, although the de facto petitioner was Ms Susan Smith trading as Brook Smiths Funeral Directors in Skipton [2].

Ms Smith filed a petition and made written representations to the Court in the form of an email dated 29 January 2026. In her email she “admits that the headstone should not have been fixed without [the incumbent, the Rev Findlow’s] permission” [4]. Hill Ch. noted that several issues needed to be addressed regarding the grant of a confirmatory faculty in these circumstances, including:

• the reason why works were undertaken without prior permission and therefore unlawfully;
• the likelihood of a repetition of the unlawful works in the future; and
• whether permission would have been forthcoming had permission been sought prospectively[5].

The Chancellor was unconvinced that Ms Smith was unaware of the illegality of her actions, and her justification — wanting the bereaved widow to see the memorial before Christmas — was rejected as unreasonable; her conduct was described as ill-thought and somewhat reckless, causing avoidable distress. He could find no objective and reasonable justification for Ms Smith causing or permitting the headstone to be introduced without authority[9].

The Chancellor was concerned about a risk of repetition due to the funeral director’s poor understanding of the faculty jurisdiction. Since Ms Smith elected not to adduce evidence in reply to the statement of the incumbent, he accepted as unchallenged Rev Findlow’s evidence that the headstone did not comply with the Churchyards Regulations, particularly regarding height and potential safety concerns, with similar issues noted in two other installations handled by the same funeral director.

Whilst the height issue might be satisfied after settlement of the grave had taken place, the extension of the court’s consideration to the other installations raised further concerns. These two other headstones had been introduced into the churchyard by Ms Smith in the recent past (Cameron and Hale) and photographic evidence indicated that the latter was already leaning forward. Consequently, the Court could not be satisfied that the Watson, Cameron and Hale headstones had been safely erected, a concern is heightened by Ms Smith’s choice not to challenge or respond to Mr Findlow’s evidence on this[14].

The Chancellor concluded that convening a hearing or at least a site visit so the abiding concerns could be fully investigated, or directing the Archdeacon to investigate these matters fully, would be unduly costly and disproportionate[15]. However, he did consider that an independent memorial mason should inspect all three headstones (at the expense of Ms Smith) and certify whether they were safe and whether their installation was in accordance with industry standards as recommended by NAMM and BRAMM, including but not limited to BS 8415. In the event that any issues are raised, the matter should be referred to him for further directions[16].

He therefore directed:

• That a confirmatory faculty may issue in respect of the headstone unlawfully erected by Ms Smith over the grave of Mr Ian Watson.
• Such faculty would not issue until:
  (a) an independent memorial mason had certified the safe and competent erection of headstones over the Watson, Cameron and Hale graves. He direcedt the Archdeacon to oversee the certification process, the costs of which are to be borne by Ms Smith; and
  (b) the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings are paid in full by Ms Smith.
• In the event that items (a) and (b) are not completed within 28 days, the Watson headstone is to be removed.

The Chancellor declined to ban the funeral director from future work in the diocese, believing she had learned a salutary lesson from these events. However, he reserved the right to revisit his conclusion should the certification process reveal matters of concern [18].