The grave space next to the petitioner's father's grave had been informally reserved for the interment of his mother. However, in circumstances including significantly inadequate records of burials and the absence of an up-to-date churchyard plan, a third party had been interred in the ‘reserved’ plot. The petitioner sought a faculty for the exhumation of his father and his reinterment one row away, where there would be space for his mother adjacent.

The gravedigger proposed, rather than to lift and re-bury the father's coffin, to dig a trench along which it could be dragged to its new resting place. The court was satisfied that this did not constitute exhumation because the remains would at all times stay at the depth at which they had been buried. Such an operation required a faculty in order to be lawful, as it interfered with human remains after burial; but because it was not an exhumation, the principles in re Blagdon did not apply. A mistake – albeit not in the interment of the father – had been made; and in fairness it should be corrected if it was lawful to do so. A faculty would be granted.

The churchwardens were made a party in order for the court to consider an order that they bear the costs of the undertaker. [DW]