The petitioner sought a confirmatory faculty permitting the memorial over her late husband's grave to remain in place. The memorial contravened the churchyard regulations in a number of respects, namely the material used, the finish of that material, the lettering used, the use of a photo plaque, the use of kerbstones and the use of blue chippings. The memorial had been erected after the curate of the parish purported to give his consent, even though the proposed memorial was not within those classes for which a minister could give permission under the regulations. In refusing the application, the chancellor adopted the principles set down by Collier Ch in Re St Paul, Drighlington (2006), Wakefield Cons Ct (reported at (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 239). Any purported consent for a memorial outside the scope of the minister's delegated authority is a nullity. Both the petitioner and the funeral director had signed forms asserting that the memorial complied with the regulations. In fact, neither had even read the regulations, and the non-compliance was substantial. The chancellor observed that the funeral directors should have taken proper steps to ensure that all of their staff were apprised of the content of the regulations and that funeral directors are expected to have a full and proper understanding of the faculty jurisdiction and the nature and extent of the authority delegated to ministers concerning the erection of memorials. He ordered the funeral directors to pay 75 per cent of the faculty costs and the priest 25 per cent, and required the funeral directors to reimburse the petitioner monies paid for the erection of the memorial. The chancellor required the memorial to be removed. [RA]