Middlewich Town Council v Middlewich Cemetery Joint Committee Board & Ors

A burial board or joint committee abolished by the Local Government Act 1972 cannot continue to operate a public cemetery, and a local authority cannot lawfully delegate those statutory functions to a charitable trust. Where evidence shows missing cemetery records or potentially misapplied public funds, the court may make orders under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requiring responsible persons to disclose records and provide an account. Such orders must remain proportionate. They should not extend to individuals where the evidence does not establish possession, control or involvement in the relevant operations or transactions.

The claimant local authority brought proceedings concerning the operation and finances of Middlewich Cemetery by a former cemetery board and several individuals. Earlier proceedings had been compromised by a Tomlin Order providing for a charitable trust to manage the cemetery. The claimant later argued that arrangement was unlawful because the cemetery was subject to the statutory regime governing burial authorities.

The court first determined ownership and statutory status, set aside the Tomlin Order, lifted the stay in the earlier proceedings and consolidated them with the later claim. The remaining issues concerned delivery of cemetery records, continuation of injunctive relief, material relating to an Outlook e-mail account, and an account of cemetery funds.

1. Preliminary issue. The court found on the balance of probabilities that both parcels of land used by the cemetery were owned by the claimant and that the cemetery was not a private cemetery. It was therefore subject to the Local Government Act 1972. Section 214 and Schedule 26 made the proposed charitable-trust arrangement unlawful and unenforceable. The Tomlin Order was set aside, the stay was lifted and the proceedings were consolidated.
2. Final order and records. Under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, it was just and convenient to require the First to Fifth Defendants to comply with the interim injunction requiring delivery of relevant records and identification of further material. The order was extended to the Sixth Defendant because she had created the cemetery’s Outlook account and could check for related material. It was not extended to the Seventh Defendant because the evidence did not establish any role in the cemetery’s management or possession of relevant records.
3. Account. The evidence established some misappropriation of cemetery funds and justified requiring the Second to Fifth Defendants to provide details and supporting documents for transactions comprising the alleged total of £109,234.89, including transactions on other accounts such as the Fifth Defendant’s Lloyds account. The court did not determine at this stage the amount actually misappropriated, the legitimacy of particular expenditure, or individual liability.
4. The Sixth and Seventh Defendants were excluded from the account order. The evidence showed that neither had access to or control over the cemetery’s bank accounts. The Barclays telephone transcript was insufficiently reliable to establish that the Seventh Defendant authorised the account-profile switch, particularly in light of evidence of forged signatures.
5. Further hearings were required to determine the legitimacy of legal expenditure, the amount and allocation of any repayment liability, costs and the final timetable for compliance.

First-instance decision. The judgment describes earlier proceedings compromised by a Tomlin Order in 2024 and interim injunctive relief granted on 16 July 2025, but no citation for those decisions is stated.