Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during July 2025
The six consistory court judgments circulated in July 2025 included
: Reordering, extensions and other building works and Exhumation. Also in this review also are: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. John the Evangelist Ranmoor [2025] ECC She 3
The works for which permission is sought are extensive internal and external repairs to the tower and spire which are urgently needed: to protect people inside and outside the building from the risk of injury from falling masonry, to preserve the structural stability of the spire and to weatherproof and prevent water ingress to tower and spire. The DAC considered the works and recommended them for approval. Public Notices have been appropriately posted and prompted no objections [2].
A full Statement of Significance about the entirety of this iconic church has been lodged alongside a project-specific Statement of Need. The Statement of Need starkly summarises the extensive evidence. This document asserts clearly and cogently that the repairs are urgently needed to address the structural issues, to prevent further deterioration and to ensure the safety of the building for its users and the community. The document lists the specific priorities as: spire structural stability, tower safety, weather proofing. and aesthetic restoration [4].
The Victorian Society made no comment on the proposal and Historic England considers the repair proposals to be appropriately informed; the proposed approach should be effective at dealing with the issue of internal stone decay, which has resulted in thin section masonry to the spire [5]. The best present estimate of the costs of these works including architect fees and VAT is £1,028,100 and fund raising is underway; the Petitioners state that £550,000 is available in existing funds to allocate to this project [6].
Although the works involve the exterior of the building, the purpose is to maintain and repair the existing structures; Sarah Singleton KC did not consider that Local Authority planning permission was advised. She assumed that the Planning Department of Sheffield City Council was aware of what is proposed and supportive. If not, they should be informed and their position confirmed. The insurance position must also be confirmed. She did not propose to make either of these necessary steps the subjects of a proviso [8].
The Chancellor directed that a faculty issue to permit these works; “the works are described in the DAC advice and the Petition in more detail than the heading of this judgment. The Faculty should set out the detailed description as the subject of the permission”. She proposed to extend the time in which the works should be completed to 3 years[9]. [Re St. John the Evangelist Ranmoor [2025] ECC She 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. John the Evangelist Ranmoor [2025] ECC She 4 The petitioners sought to remove a four-legged black wrought iron stand installed in 1991 around the font, because it made it awkward to conduct baptisms and it partly obscured a stained glass window in the baptistry, the only window in the church depicting women. The Chancellor, having inspected the frame, considering that it did inhibit movement around the font and that the benefit of removing the frame would outweigh any harm to the church interior. She therefore granted a faculty. [Re St. John the Evangelist Ranmoor [2025] ECC She 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].
In re a burial and in re AB on behalf of XY [2025] ECC Bri 1 XY is the sister of the late RQ who was the widow of PQ. XY is in her early 90s. She is frail and the facts of this petition are such that they have been kept from her so that she should not be so affected by them that her health deteriorates, possible even terminally. After her death an unredacted copy of this judgment may be released
The petitioner in this case is AB, a close friend to XY of whom Gau Ch. commented [1]:
“She is to be commended for her determination and loyalty in the manner with which she has dealt with these matters. I suggest that there are very few people lucky enough to have a friend as good as AB to fight so doggedly on their behalf. That XY will never know of her actions is even more commendable”.
XY and RQ were exceptionally close. XY was engaged but her fiancé died before they could get married when she was 19. XY and RQ lived together for all their lives, even after RQ married PQ. They had all shared the same house since 1988 [2]. PQ died in 2003 and was buried in a double depth grave, AAB04. It was intended that RQ would be buried with him when she died and, it is claimed, XY was to buried next to them in AAB03 [4].
RQ died in 2011 and was buried with PQ in AAB04. I am told that every week XY would go to tend her late sister and brother in law’s grave, and would indicate the adjacent vacant plot and say: “That is where I am going to go”. Significantly, over the years, as the churchyard has filled up, AAB03 has remained untouched whilst the greater proportion of the nearby plots have been used [5].
On 10 September 2024 ST was buried in AAB03. It was only then that it became clear that there had never been a formal recording of the reservation of the grave space. It was abundantly clear that all three believed that AAB04 was reserved for PQ and RQ and AAB03 was reserved for XY [8]. The Archdeacon, on behalf of the Parish, which is in vacancy, has accepted that a mistake was made and has made appropriately fulsome apologies. Gau Ch. caused enquiries to be made of previous incumbents and other priests licensed to the parish over the relevant periods, but none could assist about any such reservation for XY. Further, there is no formal record of the grave reservation for XY in the parish. The Chancellor warned [emphasis added]:
“[10] If a formal record of grave reservations is not kept by a parish this sort of mistake can occur. The possible very serious consequences of this failure to make accurate records are exemplified here. If it happens again, I will have to consider making a costs order against the relevant PCC and/or incumbent. As it is the Diocese have agreed to support the parish with the reasonable costs of exhumation and reburial which exceed the parish’s ability to pay”.
The family of ST have been approached and all bar one relative graciously agreed to his proposed exhumation and reburial next to his wife’s parents who are buried in the same churchyard [11]. In this case the Chancellor was quite satisfied that there had been a mistake here in allowing ST to be buried in AAB03. The mistake had arisen because accurate records of grave reservations had not been maintained. “As is so often the case the two parties most affected by this mistake are entirely innocent”. The Faculty was granted as prayed: ST is to be exhumed and reburied in the plot identified next to his parents in law, and AAB03 is to be reserved for XY [14]. [Re A Burial [2025] ECC Bri 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Michael the Archangel Warfield [2025] ECC Oxf 6 The petitioner wished to have her late husband buried in the grave of his first wife, which also contained the cremated remains of his first wife’s mother. In order for the burial to take place, it would be necessary for the cremated remains of the first wife’s mother to be temporarily exhumed and then returned to the same grave after the interment of the body of the petitioner’s husband. The Area Dean did not support the petition. He believed that exhumation would be contrary to the theological presumption of the permanence of Christian burial. The Chancellor, however, considered that there was case law which supported an exception to the normal presumption of permanence in these circumstances and he granted a faculty. [Re St. Michael the Archangel Warfield [2025] ECC Oxf 6] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Nicholas Radford [2025] ECC Cov 1 The petitioner sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of each of her parents from the churchyard of St. Nicholas Radford (the church having been demolished), so that the remains could be taken to Oakley Wood Crematorium for interment or scattering next to a family memorial bench commemorating the petitioner’s husband.
The cremated remains of the petitioner’s mother and father had been interred in 1991 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner stated that she found it too far to travel to the churchyard. The Crematorium advised that its grounds were unconsecrated; that only scattering was allowed; and that no permission could be given for relocation of the memorial stone.
The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Difficulty in travelling to a grave was not a sufficiently exceptional circumstance to justify an exception to the normal presumption of permanence of burial. Moreover, the petitioner’s father had clearly wished his cremated remains to be buried in the same grave as the remains of his wife, rather than be scattered. [Re St. Nicholas Radford [2025] ECC Cov 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Gravesend and Milton Cemetery [2025] ECC Roc 3 In Re Gravesend and Milton Cemetery [2025] ECC Roc 1, the Chancellor had refused to grant a faculty to permit the remains of Pierre Louis Le Chêne (a former Lieutenant of the SOE, known to his family as “Captain”) to be exhumed from the cemetery at Gravesend (his wife’s home town) for reinterment in France, where the petitioner, the deceased’s widow, now lived.
The petitioner now sought permission to appeal. She also produced new information in support of her application. The Chancellor considered that in the light of the new information he should treat the petitioner’s application as one to set aside the earlier decision and to consider the petition afresh in the light of all the evidence.
However, he concluded that it would be wrong to grant the petition: “It would be quintessentially to treat Captain Le Chêne’s remains as portable – precisely the denial of the principle of permanence that I am required by binding authority to guard against.“ [ELA link to judgment – a very large file, 3,904 KB] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
The PCC of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Winifred’s: environmental permit application advertisement, TQ13 9UJ: Application No EPR/RB3544KS/A001 for Trench Arch Drainage System.
National grid reference discharge point: SX 74927 81289; Receiving environment: discharge to Trench Arch Drainage System; Effluent type: Trench Arch effluent; Volume: 0.2 cubic metres per day.
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice)
An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in St Mary’s Churchyard, Church Street, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire. - Burial Act 1853 (Final)
An Order prohibiting further burials in:-Christ Church Cemetery, Kintbury, Berkshire; Kenwyn Parish Church Churchyard, Truro, Cornwall; St Mary’s Church Churchyard, Chigwell, Essex; St Mary’s Churchyard, Ditchingham, Norfolk; St Nicholas Churchyard, Frankton, Rugby, Warwickshire. - Burial Act 1855 (Variation)
Order varying an Order dated 11th December 1854 prohibiting further burials in the Churchyard of St Mary’s, Ottery St Mary, Devon
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
- The Revd Anne-Marie Marsh: Decision, complaint, of unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within s.8(1)(d) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 dismissed, (July 2025). See also Systemic failures and pastoral vulnerability in a clergy discipline case, (1 August 2025).
Safeguarding
Safeguarding at Blackburn Cathedral – Audit Report On 3 July 2025, the Diocese of Blackburn published Audit highlights ‘strong commitment to safeguarding’ across Diocese but ‘urgent improvement’ needed at Cathedral, (4 July 2025).
Bangor Cathedral – Statement: Representative Body Further to recent developments relating to Bangor Cathedral, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales issued a Statement comprising the full text of the motion approved by the Representative Body on 24 June 2025. (2 July 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 4 September 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Exhumation
- Exhumation of cremated remains – Re St. Nicholas Radford, (19 July 2025).
- Burial in the wrong plot – a cautionary tale, (1 July 2025).
Bells
- Re-instatement of bells in listed church, (25 July 2025).
General/Miscellaneous
- Chancel Repair Liability – Law Commission Consultation, (21 July 2025).
- Settlement reached on conversion therapy ‘exorcism’, (17 July 2025).
- Mitochondrial donation treatment* – update July 2025, (17 July 2025).
- Progress on those unable to consume gluten and/or alcohol at Holy Communion, (10 July 2025)
- PCC statutory inquiry, Charity Commission, (7 July).
- Parochial Fees – GS Misc Paper for July Synod, (2 July 2025).
- Safeguarding at Blackburn Cathedral – Audit Report On 3 July 2025, the Diocese of Blackburn published Audit highlights ‘strong commitment to safeguarding’ across Diocese but ‘urgent improvement’ needed at Cathedral, (4 July 2025).
- Parochial Fees – GS Misc Paper for July Synod, (2 July 2025).
- Bangor Cathedral – Statement: Representative Body Further to recent developments relating to Bangor Cathedral, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales issued a Statement comprising the full text of the motion approved by the Representative Body on 24 June 2025. (2 July 2025).
[Top]
Updated: 4 August 2025 at 18:23.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.