Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during December 2024
The eleven consistory court judgments circulated in December 2024 included: Reordering, extensions and other building works ; Exhumation; and Churchyards and burials. This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Reordering and alternative uses
- Other building works, including re-roofing
- Removal and replacement of pews
Reordering and alternative uses
Re St. Mary Almeley [2024] ECC Her 1 The petitioners proposed several items of reordering. One of the items was a proposal to move the font from near the south door to the eastern end of the north aisle. The reason given for moving the font was that its current position was not convenient for social or recreational occasions in church. The Chancellor reminded the petitioners of Canon F1, which requires the font to be sited near the main entrance to the church. As he decided that he could find no exceptional liturgical or other reason for moving the font, he declined to grant a faculty and said that the whole project should be looked at again and a new petition presented so that the proposals could be reconsidered as a whole. [Re St. Mary Almeley [2024] ECC Her 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re Saint Julian the Hospitaller Wellow [2024] ECC B&W 2 The petitioners sought to create a doorway in the North wall of the mediaeval tower of this Grade I listed church for the purpose of providing access to kitchen and lavatory accommodation, yet to be built, against the external wall [1]. Briden Ch. commented:
“[4]. …Rule 1 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 sets out an overriding objective ”to enable the court to deal with cases justly.” More specifically, Rule 1.1(2) provides that the overriding objective includes,
…….” (b) saving expense; (c) dealing with the case in ways that are proportionate to the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues; and (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.”
[5]. In applying these principles, in particular the saving of expense and the need for expedition and fairness, it was clear that the issue of the doorway in the tower had to be resolved promptly. Since the Petitioners were not ready to present a comprehensive petition covering the entire scheme, it was not practicable simply to direct the question of the doorway to be determined as a preliminary issue.
Instead a direction was given on June 17th 2024 to the effect that a petition should be lodged limited to the creation of a doorway in the tower wall for the purpose of giving access to future kitchen and lavatory facilities. Should this petition be successful, the Petitioners will be at liberty to present a second petition in due course dealing with the balance of the scheme. It is this first petition, dated June 26th 2024, with which the present judgment is concerned.”
The precise design of the proposal was controversial: the DAC did not recommend it and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings considered intervention in the mediaeval fabric to be unjustified.
The Chancellor determined that, of the six alternative schemes considered by the petitioners, the chosen one, on balance, would be the correct one to adopt, and he accordingly granted a faculty, subject to the work not being carried out until a further faculty for the construction of the associated extension had been granted. [Re Saint Julian the Hospitaller Wellow [2024] ECC B&W 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. James the Greater Romanby [2024] ECC Yor 2 The petitioners
sought to remove all the pews from the Victorian Grade II church and replace them with Treske chairs. The altar is its sole focus and currently this light, airy and pale coloured interior contains plain, dark brown pews. These are described as Victorian catalogue pews and it has not been suggested anywhere in the papers before the court that they are of any intrinsic note. They do, though, contribute to the present interior appearance in a striking way and date from the same period as the church itself [1].
There were two important and articulate local of objection, alleging that the removal of the dark pews would strip the church of its individuality and the contrast in its interior [2] and [5]. None of those contacted chose to become a party opponent and neither of the statutory consultees made any substantive comments on the works [3].
After considering the questions raised in Re St. Alkmund Duffield (2013) Fam 146, de Mestre Ch. concluded that, whilst the removal of the pews would cause moderate harm to the church, the resulting public benefits justified the grant of a faculty. [Re St. James the Greater Romanby [2024] ECC Yor 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re Barrowby Burial Ground [2024] ECC Lin 3 The Clerk to the Parish Council and the widow of the deceased sought the exhumation of remains interred in a consecrated plot at Barrowby Burial Ground 13 September 2024. Regrettably the grave digger had been given incorrect information to dig a single depth rather than a double depth grave. The application was to permit the digging of a double depth grave at the same plot. This will require a trench to be dug to move the coffin to one to side at its current level, to enable the lower depth to be dug and then for the coffin to be interred at the correct level [1].
The applicants are the widow and the clerk of the Parish Council who support the application. The Council will be responsible for all the additional costs incurred. The deceased’s mother has also agreed and on this basis, Bishop Ch. held that he could properly infer that all the family were in agreement with this application [2].
The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to allow the existing coffin to be exposed and temporarily moved in order to allow the grave to be dug deeper [8]. He stated that he would be grateful for the Parish Clerk’s assurance that the means by which gravediggers are given such important information before they dig, had been reviewed, and that such a mistake would not occur again [10]. [Re Barrowby Burial Ground [2024] ECC Lin 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Brookwood Cemetery (No. 2) [2024] ECC Gui 3 In June 2023, the Deputy Chancellor of the Diocese had refused a faculty for exhumation from Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey and reinterment in the churchyard in Conistone in Yorkshire, where the family had lived for 200 years. The deceased had died in a car accident in 1967 and had been buried at Brookwood Cemetery without any of the family attending. The Deputy Chancellor decided that the family’s change of mind as to the location of burial after such a long period since the death did not justify exhumation.
The current petition sought to set aside the previous decision (under Rule 20.3(1)(a)) and again request a faculty. The reason for the delay in requesting exhumation and reinterment after such a long time was explained as due to the family’s reluctance to distress their mother, who suffered from mental health illness after their father’s death, and also the petitioner having been unable to cope, emotionally or psychologically, with visiting the grave. Burns Ch. considered that it was appropriate in the circumstances to grant a faculty. [Re Brookwood Cemetery (No. 2) [2024] ECC Gui 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Peter Aubourn [2024] ECC Lin 1 The petitioners sought exhumation of the cremated remains of a relative and reinterment at a higher elevation in the same churchyard; the remains were interred on 24 July 2020 in an area where cremated remains are interred; this has become heavily waterlogged over a lengthy period making it difficult to attend this grave. It is slippery and dangerous underfoot. Efforts have been made to improve the situation with limiting access and putting bark chippings down, but this has not helped [1].
It is proposed that the interred remains within a biodegradable cardboard container will be exhumed and reinterred in an identified location in the churchyard at a higher elevation [2], on which Bishop Ch. commented on the practical concerns of the undertaker and his warning of a strong possibility that it will not be possible to achieve an exhumation in the circumstances, although this was not ruled out [3].
Applying the judgment in Re Blagdon Cemetery he commented:
“[10]. This is a case in which it was plainly a mistake to have cremated remains interred in a place that was to become so waterlogged so soon after the interment when immediate family members are likely to want to visit, and who are now prevented from visiting. I am sure that it is the intention of [the deceased’s] immediate family, including his widow, that they would wish to be interred in proximity to the new proposed location where [his] ashes are interred. In those circumstances the principles surrounding family graves expressing family unity adds weight to this application.
The Chancellor was satisfied that exceptional reasons did exist in this case for an exhumation to be permitted [11], but commented that It would be necessary for the PCC to apply for a separate faculty to establish a cremated remains area, but if this area has been identified, he was satisfied that cremated remains of the deceased could be interred in the identified spot as soon as possible after the exhumation has been achieved pursuant to this Faculty [12]. [Re St. Peter Aubourn [2024] ECC Lin 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Canwick Cemetery [2024] ECC Lin 4 The petitioner, whose family was in China, sought a faculty to permit the exhumation of the remains of her husband, which had been interred in Canwick Cemetery, so that they could be cremated and the ashes transported to and reinterred near the graves of relatives in a cemetery in Shenzhen in China. The remains had been interred in 1992, when it was not possible for the petitioner to arrange for transport of her husband’s remains back to China. A plot in China had been purchased in 2013 and the petitioner now had the funds to cover the exhumation and transport to China. The petitioner had informed her son that on her death her ashes should be taken to China and interred with her husband’s remains. The Chancellor was satisfied that exceptional reasons existed for an exhumation to be permitted. [Re Canwick Cemetery [2024] ECC Lin 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Oswald Crowle [2024] ECC Lin 6 The petitioner sought to exhume the ashes of her father from the churchyard of St Oswald Crowle, interred in 1991, and reinter the ashes in Crowle Cemetery, where the ashes of her recently departed mother were to be interred. Her father’s ashes were interred with his father’s ashes in the churchyard of St Oswald, Crowle; they were placed in a plastic urn within that plot and the undertakers are confident that it can be easily recovered [2].
In 1991, Crowle Cemetery did not have an area set aside for cremated remains, but now there was such an area, and the family wished to ensure that the petitioner’s parents were buried together [3]. The Chancellor was satisfied that exceptional reasons existed in this case for an exhumation to be permitted [12]. [Re St. Oswald Crowle [2024] ECC Lin 6] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Mary the Virgin Weston Turville [2024] ECC Oxf 8 The petitioner wished to have a cross and a Star of David on a memorial to her late husband, who had been brought up in the Jewish faith but who had later adopted the Christian faith. The Chancellor considered two previous decisions of consistory courts in other dioceses: in the one case, where permission was given on the grounds of exceptional circumstances, and the other, where permission was not given because the Chancellor decided that there were no exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor in the present case decided to grant a faculty. He considered that the cross and the Star of David recognised the Jewish tradition and subsequent Christian faith of the deceased and also, when the petitioner was in due time interred in the same grave, the two symbols would represent their separate religions. However, the Chancellor made it clear that a Star of David should only be permitted for good and sufficient reasons and should always be the subject of a faculty application. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Weston Turville [2024] ECC Oxf 8] [Post][Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John the Evangelist Rownhams [2024] ECC Win 4 An application was made for a book-shaped memorial which had features outside the churchyards regulations. However, these regulations are shortly due to be the subject of a fundamental review [1]. The PCC was supportive of the proposals on the understanding that certain modifications were made. Of these the petitioner accepted some, on which Ormondroyd Ch. commented “The PCC’s formal position therefore appears to me to be that it objects to the proposals before me”[2], and he DAC considered the proposals and recommended refusal [3]. The reasons were summarized in [10] and [11] respectively.
In the light of Re St. Giles Exhall [2021] EACC 1, the Chancellor did not follow his approach in Re All Saints Bransgore with Thorney Hill [2017] ECC Win 3 but considered the application on its merits, in the context of the objections [14]. The Chancellor determined that the memorial would cause only very limited harm to the churchyard and listed church building and he granted a faculty, subject to the constraints on dimensions set out in the judgment and subject to the stone not bearing a picture or photograph [28]. [Re St. John the Evangelist Rownhams [2024] ECC Win 4] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St Guthlac Market Deeping [2024] ECC Lin 2 The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorize the refurbishment of the kerbs surrounding the petitioner’s grandparents’ grave, the removal of a self-seeded tree from the middle of the grave and an additional inscription in memory of the petitioner’s father, whose remains had been interred elsewhere [1].
The petitioner also sought to add an inscription in memory of his late father, his grandparents’ only son whose remains had been interred elsewhere in the churchyard. Bishop Ch. noted:
“[3]. The only issue of concern is whether the inscription to be added to
commemorate John Dudley Fromant may be misleading in suggesting his remains have been interred in that grave”.
However, the Petitioner did not wish to add wording about any other location.[5]. The Chancellor required the addition of the word ‘And’ at the beginning of the proposed wording [6], and that the dates of the birth and death should use the words of the relevant month rather than numbers [7]. [Re St Guthlac Market Deeping [2024] ECC Lin 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Andrew Rippingdale [2024] ECC Lin 5 Notwithstanding that the incumbent had advised a firm of stonemasons that a faculty would be required, the firm commenced extensive works of restoration of a memorial – the existing headstone and kerb had been removed and there was a large concrete slab installed, all without permission. The Chancellor observed:
“[10]. It is unprofessional for a mason working in a churchyard not to realise that they must have the express consent of the Vicar/incumbent to any works to the memorials in the churchyard before they begin. I find it very surprising that any mason working in the churchyards of this diocese should fail to realise that, and to believe it could be appropriate to embark upon this work without the consent of the Vicar/incumbent or with a Faculty granted. The unnamed author of the last email from Set in Stone makes a final gratuitous comment that the incumbent’s direction that all work should stop caused ‘more distress to Mrs Martin’.
[11]. I am sure everyone regrets any distress caused to Mrs Martin and her family about this, but the cause of this is not the incumbent seeking to ensure that the law is followed but Set in Stone going ahead with this work without any permission. It is hard to credit that an experienced mason could think that such work could be started without the agreement of the Vicar or his/her reference to the DAC and the need for a Faculty.
The Chancellor granted a faculty but asked the stonemasons to undertake a review of the training they give to masons about the Churchyard Regulations and the delegated authority given to the clergy to authorise memorials, and the requirement for faculties granted by Archdeacons or the Chancellor for other works in the churchyard. [Re St. Andrew Rippingale [2024] ECC Lin 5, Revised] [Top of section] [Top of post]
[See also Re St Guthlac Market Deeping [2024] ECC Lin 2] in which the Petitioner sought inter alia the removal of a self-seeded tree from the middle of the grave.]
See Re St. Mary Almeley.
- ARCHBISHOPRIC OF CANTERBURY Order declaring vacant the Archbishopric of Canterbury with effect from the seventh day of January 2025.
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: Holy Trinity Church, Graveyard 3, Bolton-Le-Sands, Lancashire; All Saints Church Churchyard, Kirkbymoorside, York, North
Yorkshire; St Paul’s Church Churchyard, Halesowen, Birmingham, West Midlands; St Barnabas Churchyard, Easterton, Wiltshire; St Mary’s Church Churchyard, Broughton, Hampshire; St Peter’s Churchyard, Navenby, Lincoln, Lincolnshire. - Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St Mary’s Church Churchyard, Wisbech St Mary, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire; Church of St Lawrence Churchyard, Swindon Village, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire; St Mary’s Churchyard, Cholsey, Oxfordshire; St Mawnan Parish Church Churchyard, Falmouth, Truro, Cornwall; St Mary the Virgin Church Churchyard, Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire; St Julian’s Churchyard, Rectory Road, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex; Gaydon St Giles Church Churchyard, Gaydon, Warwickshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty are published by the Church of England; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed. The majority of complaints that are made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal.
CDM Decisions
Penalties by consent
Name: The Revd Joseph Oyinlade Itunu OLADIPO
Diocese: Oxford
Date imposed: 13 December 2024
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Rebuke and injunction
Name: The Revd Timothy (Tim) Charles STANFORD
Diocese: Southwell and Nottingham
Date imposed: 6th November 2024
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for Life (with effect from 18th November 2024)
Employment Tribunals
Safeguarding
Jan Pickles: The Caldey Island Review: Review into allegations of non-recent childhood sexual abuse within the monastic community of Caldey Abbey on Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire, (1 December 2024).
Scolding Review: Actions and Recommendations. The Diocese of St Albans has published its action plan in response to the Independent Review into Soul Survivor led by Fiona Scolding KC, following its initial response of 26 September 2024. This includes a series of changes to be implemented within the Diocese, alongside recommendations for the wider Church of England.
The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page Cathedrals Fabric Commission. The programme for 2024 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 6 February 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Churchyards
- Trees in Churchyards, (2 December 2024).
General/Miscellaneous
- Law Commission: scoping financial remedies on divorce, (18 December 2024).
- Statement on BBC File on 4 on abuse by David Tudor, (16 December 2024).
- Appointment of CNC Chair for Canterbury, (16 December 2024).
- Soul Survivor – Actions and Recommendations, (13 December 2024).
- Parochial Fees Church in Wales 2025, (9 December 2024).
- Church of England Parochial Fees 2025, (5 December 2024).
- Support for “radical change in burial law” by Church in Wales, (3 December 2024).
[Top]
Updated: 28 December 2024 at 08:43.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.