Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during February 2025
The five consistory court judgments circulated in February included: Procedural issues; Reordering, extensions and other building works ; and Churchyards and burials. This post also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Re The Wisdom of God Lower Kingswood [2025] ECC Swk 1 The matter related to a preliminary issue in respect of a petition by the then Priest in Charge and the churchwardens, which seeks authority for the sale of a12th century Greek lectionary which had been given to the church in 1948. The preliminary point that arises is whether such authority is necessary [1]. The Grade I church, dedicated to the Wisdom of God, is described by Sir Simon Jenkins’ book as “a Byzantine shrine, somehow detached from Constantinople and dropped into the Home Counties” [2].
The church was and is licensed for public worship within the parish but has never been consecrated. In legal terms it is vested in three trustees; its maintenance and management is organised and paid for by the PCC of the parish [3]. In 1990 the Bishop of Southwark made an order under the provisions of section 6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964, making the church subject to the faculty jurisdiction.
The lectionary had never been kept in the church. It was originally put into a bank vault, but allegedly displayed in the church occasionally on festival occasions. In 1968 it was loaned to the British Library. In 2019 the British Library informed the parish that it no longer wished to have the lectionary on loan, and it was transferred to Trinity College, Cambridge [7,8]. Notwithstanding that the lectionary had rarely, if ever, been in the church, the Chancellor decided that it could still be described as part of the contents of the church, even if its whereabouts were not physically inside the church. The point that was made to the Chancellor was that if the choice is between an indefinite loan to an institution that will make it available to scholars and a sale to such an institution, there is no reason why a sale should not be preferred; the benefit of which will be the receipt of the sale price. In this judgment Petchey Ch stated that he need not go into the arguments arising [emphasis in original].
He observed “[t]he question that arises is a simple one: did the lectionary in 1990 form part of the contents of the church? The answer is not quite so simple [12]”. However, he concluded:
“[13]. ….As I have explained, I think that the lectionary can still be described as part of the contents of the church even if its whereabouts were not physically inside the church. Accordingly in my judgment, it is necessary that, if the lectionary is to be sold, a faculty must be obtained”.
He gave further directions, but subject to confirmation:
“[14]. …the current proposal is a sale at less than market value to Trinity College. On this basis, I will need an up to date valuation and to be told what the college are minded to pay; and then I shall need submissions that address the guidance given in Re St Lawrence, Wootton [2015] Fam 27 (Ct of Arches)..
[Re The Wisdom of God Lower Kingswood [2025] ECC Swk 1]
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Re St. Lawrence Lechlade [2024] ECC Glo 1 An extensive programme of reordering the Grade I church was proposed [1(A) to (T)], including raising the nave floor and introducing new limestone flagstones; underfloor heating; air source heat pumps in the churchyard; replacing the nave pews with chairs, introduction of a west end gallery with two toilets underneath; “and other items too numerous to be listed in a short summary”.
The main object of the proposals was ‘putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission.’ The Chancellor received have received and read approximately 55 letters in support of the Petition; almost all were from people who had a high level of involvement with the worshipping life of the church [19]
Also, approximately 40 letters of objection were received, but although no objector became a party opponent. The Chancellor visited St Lawrence’s and looked at the different parts of the church, bearing in mind the different objections that had been raised to see whether the Petitioners had addressed the concerns of those objecting. Following his visit, he gave further directions which resulted in further information provided by the Petitioners and a further consultation response from the DAC [20].
Each of the elements, [A] to [T], was considered individually, [22] to [135], and additionally the demolition an external chimney [136] on which he would be prepared to consider any application to amend this Petition; Also the possibility of photovoltaic panels on the roof on which he would be prepared to consider any application to amend although this would require: a PCC resolution, appropriate consultation, notice, DAC recommendation and a structural engineer’s report before determining such an amendment to the Petition. [137]
The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the works. [Re St. Lawrence Lechlade [2024] ECC Glo 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. James Southlake [2025] ECC Oxf 1 The parish sought to fence in a grassed area of the modern, unlisted church’s land in order to provide a safer outdoor space for children’s church activities and for community groups using this open space. With an electoral role of 150, the church building and its facilities are widely used by the local community, including a pre-school group that uses the building between four and five days a week. The parish’s ministry to children and families is well developed, and they are especially keen to enhance this aspect of their outreach [1]. The proposal has the full support of those members of the PCC eligible to vote and not affected by any conflict of interest. The PCC made inquiries of the local planning authority which indicate that planning permission is not required for this fence because it will not exceed one metre in height from ground level [5].
The DAC recommended the proposal for approval by the court. They advise that the works are not likely to affect the character of the church as a building of any special architectural or historic interest, or the archaeological importance of the church building, or any archaeological remains existing within the church building or its curtilage. It also advised the PCC to check the requirement for planning permission with their local planning authority before commencing any works, noting that advice on the planning portal is only an introductory guide, and not a source of legal information [6].
There were two objections from neighbouring residents [9,10] and [11 to 14], alleging nuisance from noise created by those already using the church land, to which the parish responded [15 to 17]. Referring to his role as role Chancellor of Blackburn Diocese, Hodge Ch. citied his judgment Re St. Paul North Shore Blackpool [2024] ECC Bla 6 [at 14] in which he said:
“It is no part of the function of the consistory court to adjudicate upon complaints of nuisance to adjoining land; that is a matter for the civil courts. Nor does the grant of a faculty authorising particular works operate to render them immune from challenge in the civil courts, in accordance with the general law governing the tort of nuisance.
Just as the grant of planning permission cannot render works immune from challenge under the civil law of nuisance, neither can the grant of a faculty by the consistory court. The grant of a faculty merely renders the carrying out of the works thereby authorised immune from challenge under ecclesiastical law, or (in the case of a listed building) from challenge for want of secular listed building consent. It does not operate to derogate from any rights enjoyed by the church’s neighbours under the general law of nuisance”.
He repeated and endorsed these observations in the present case, and added that similar considerations apply to assertions of the threatened breach of any relevant restrictive covenant. As with the tort of nuisance, the enforcement of restrictive covenants is a matter for the ordinary civil courts.
The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated a clear and convincing justification for the proposed works and granted a faculty, making it clear that deciding upon questions of nuisance was a matter for the civil courts, rather than the consistory court. In granting the petition he allowed three months for the completion of the fencing proposals. As recommended by the DAC, he included the condition that the fence was not to be painted. [Re St. James Southlake [2025] ECC Oxf 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary the Virgin Bruton [2025] ECC B&W 1 The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to authorize the installation of a kitchen and servery unit in the north aisle of the church and two toilets on the ground floor of the tower, with a new meeting room and gallery above. The works would involve moving the tower screen forward a short distance [1].
Briden Ch. noted a “procedural defect” whereby during the public notice period the Chancellor’s “purely conditional” directions for a faculty to issue were given on October, on the understanding that such directions would be carried out on the expiry of the period for objections specified in the public notice, providing no objections were received [2]. However, at the end of the prescribed 28 days the faculty was sealed; thereafter on November I4th, a parishioner and member of the
Church Council, lodged an objection at the Registry, and “in doing so she ostensibly complied with the requirement set out in the public notice as published [3].
The Chancellor observed
“[4]. …in making her objection, [she] was entitled to follow the instructions given in the public notice without reference to the computation of time made in the Registry, of which she was unaware.
The parishioner was concerned that the relocation of the screen and the construction of the balcony would have an adverse impact on the west window [12] to [15]. She also was concerned about the loss of the 19th century doors from the screen. The Victorian Society had expressed similar reservations.
The Chancellor granted a faculty: although the works would involve some harm to the fabric and the lowest part of the west window would be obscured, such harm, though regrettable, was outweighed by the practical need for modern facilities within the building. “Such harm, though regrettable, is outweighed by the practical
need for modern facilities within the building. The addition of the gallery and balcony, although not equally essential, nevertheless represents good use of what might otherwise be wasted space, with an insignificant contribution to the harm arising from the insertion of the toilets” [21]. Re St. Mary the Virgin Bruton [2025] ECC B&W 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Designation of closed churchyard
Re Holy Trinity Langdale [2025] ECC Car 1 The petitioner sought to install in the churchyard of Holy Trinity Langdale a headstone commemorating two members of his family whose ashes were scattered at the Walthwaite Estate, Langdale. The intention was for the stone to be placed with memorials to other members of the family [4].
The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal for the following reasons: it was not possible to determine whether the deceased relatives would have wished to have a memorial in the churchyard; available space in this popular area should be retained for graves rather than family memorials; the requested memorial would mark neither a grave nor an interment of cremated remains; and, whilst the proposed memorial was intended to match other family memorials, a new stone and its lettering “could be very conspicuous next to its weathered neighbours” [10].
For these reasons, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He also declined an amended proposal to attach a white marble plaque to an existing family memorial [17 to 22]. [Re Holy Trinity Langdale [2025] ECC Car 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St James’ Churchyard, Church Hill, West End, Southampton, Hampshire; St John the Evangelist Churchyard, Tatworth, Somerset; St Cuthbert’s Churchyard, Beltingham, Northumberland; St Michael the Archangel Churchyard, Emley, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire; St Leonard’s Churchyard, Southoe, St Neots, Cambridgeshire; St Margaret’s Church Old Churchyard, Fleggburgh, Norfolk; St Mary’s Church Old Churchyard, Sturmer, Essex; Holy Trinity Church Churchyard, West End, Surrey.
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further 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.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Our web pages Clergy discipline, CDM and CCM include links to material relating to L&RUK posts and to Church of England publications in this area. Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty published by the Church of England; are here; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed.
The majority of complaints made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal. The Church’s web site includes Penalties by consent and Decisions made by the President of Tribunals, Deputy President or a delegate; links to the most recent of these are given below.
- Re: the former Bishop of Liverpool (February 2025): Decision on publishing section 9 application. [Post]
Penalties by consent
A new policy came into force on 24 October 2022 although there is a potential lacuna for cases where the penalty was imposed after the change in the Code of Practice, paragraph 312, but before this date, as with The Right Reverend Peter Hullah. The page on the CofE website Penalties by Consent records the penalties that have been imposed by a bishop or archbishop with the consent of the respondent under section 16 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and penalties that have been imposed under section 30 or 31.
Employment Tribunals
Safeguarding
Anthony Pierce Court Case, Anthony Pierce, who was Bishop of Swansea and Brecon between 1999 and 2008, has appeared at Swansea Crown Court and has admitted five counts of indecent assault on a male child under the age of 16. The offences date from between 1985 and 1990, when Mr Pierce was a parish priest in West Cross, Swansea. (Church in Wales, 7 February 2025).
Bishop Anthony Pierce, 84, pleads guilty to indecent assault, (Church Times, 7 February 2025).
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 2025 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 27 March 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
General/Miscellaneous
- The tort of nuisance and the consistory courts: Re St James, Southlake, (24 February 2025).
- Corporal punishment, religious beliefs, professional misconduct and the ECHR: ABC v General Medical Council, (8 February 2025).[Top]
Updated: 28 February 2025 at 15:38.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.