Ecclesiastical court judgments 2025

Posted on by

Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during 2025

Summaries of the ninety three consistory court judgments reviewed during 2025 are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included[*] :

This end-of-year review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Reports from the Independent Reviewer; Privy Council Business; Other legal issues; Visitations; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.

An index to these and earlier judgments in here.

Procedural

Re The Wisdom of God Lower Kingswood [2025] ECC Swk 1 This judgment concerned a preliminary issue as to whether a faculty would be required for the sale of a Greek lectionary, which had been given to the church in 1948. The Chancellor determined that it could still be described as part of the contents of the church, even if its whereabouts were not physically inside the church. Therefore, a faculty would be required to authorise a disposal of the lectionary. [Re The Wisdom of God Lower Kingswood [2025] ECC Swk 1] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Doverdale [2025] ECC Wor 1 Failure to observe condition in a faculty. Petition submitted in May 2022, granted subject to condition requiring archaeological watching brief (“Condition”); Condition had not been satisfied; aggravating and mitigating features considered; Petitioners and Diocesan Board of Finance each ordered to pay 50% of costs of judgment. [Re St. Mary Doverdale [2025] ECC Wor 1] [Post] [Top of post].

Reordering, extensions and other building works

[top]

Substantial reordering

Re St. Lawrence Lechlade [2024] ECC Glo 1 An extensive programme of reordering was proposed. 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.’ Approximately 40 letters of objection were received, but no objector became a party opponent. 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].

Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2025] ECC She 1 A large scheme of reordering was proposed, with the aim of improving the experience of worship and also creating flexible spaces at the front and rear of the nave to facilitate increasing community events. The Chancellor determined that the proposed changes were well argued, and therefore granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2025] ECC She 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Paul Heslington [2025] ECC Yor 1 Following a major extension and radical reordering of the church in 1973, a “bold stainless steel font … surmounted by a dove” was introduced into the church. The Chancellor considered that the redesigned interior of the church had made the retention of the older font no longer practical or desirable, and after considering all other options concluded that there was no viable alternative other than to allow the burial of the font in the churchyard. [Re St. Paul Heslington [2025] ECC Yor 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary and St. Michael Trumpington [2025] ECC Ely 1 The petitioners wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering spread over ten years. The amenity societies had reservations about a number of aspects of the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary & St. Michael Trumpington [2025] ECC Ely 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Stephen Redditch [2025] ECC Wor 2 Major re-ordering proposal. Grade II listed building; extensive consultation process; concerns and objections considered, but no parties opponent; Faculty granted subject to conditions requiring approval by DAC of detailed  matters; further details of proposed new seating and flooring to be supplied to the Court before these proposals may proceed; archaeological watching brief to be commissioned before works below floor or ground level undertaken; 4 pews to be retained; comment on designation of toilet facilities. [Re St. Stephen Redditch [2025] ECC Wor 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Bridget with St. Thomas Wavertree [2025] ECC Liv 2 The petition proposed significant internal reordering of the Grade II* listed church. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that the works would cause moderate harm to the building’s historic character but that the missional and community benefits outweighed this. The judgment emphasised balancing heritage protection with the church’s role in serving a deprived community. [Re St. Bridget with St. Thomas Wavertree [2025] ECC Liv 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Leonard Broad Blunsdon [2025] ECC Bri 3 The petition contained proposals for extensive reordering works at the Grade II* listed medieval church. ,Following a site visit, the Chancellor applied the Duffield test and concluded that, overall, the benefits for mission and community use outweighed the heritage harm. A faculty was granted for all the items, with the exception of the proposed lowering of the pulpit. [Re St. Leonard Broad Blunsdon [2025] ECC Bri 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Reordering and alternative uses

Re St. Bartholomew Colne [2025] ECC Bla 1 The Rector and Churchwarden sought a faculty to regularise the installation of four infra-red heaters in the north aisle of the church, the subject of an interim faculty,  and also to make permanent some minor reordering.  The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the four pews, their pew frontal, and the two altar rails should all be retained within the church building or in the adjacent Parish Rooms. [Re St. Bartholomew Colne [2025] ECC Bla 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re All Saints Ryde [2025] ECC Por 3 The church, designed by Gilbert Scott in the nineteenth century, is listed Grade II* and is the only church left open in Ryde. The congregation had become greatly diminished and the proposal was to carry out extensive reordering with the aim of revitalising ministry in Ryde by growing a Holy Trinity Brompton-style congregation. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals, and he granted a faculty. [Re All Saints Ryde [2025] ECC Por 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Michael Stanwix [2025] ECC Car 3 Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor granted faculties for the glazed doors, handrails, sound desk, removal of the platform and communion rail, levelling of the chancel, and ramped access. He also permitted removal of five rear pews, subject to prior approval of replacement flooring. He refused faculties for removal of the choir stalls and relocation of the pulpit, finding inadequate evidence of their significance or justification for change. He held that removal of existing carpets would be unlikely to harm significance but found the petitioners had not given due regard to the CBC’s Historic Floors Guidance when proposing new and extended carpeting. He allowed resubmission of revised flooring proposals within six months, failing which that part of the petition would stand dismissed. [See ELA] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Anne Limehouse [2025] ECC Lon 3 Major re-ordering proposal; objection by parishioner. Faculty granted subject to conditions; details to be submitted to and approved by DAC in consultation with Historic England. [Re St. Anne Limehouse [2025] ECC Lon 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Holy Trinity Hastings [2025] ECC Chichester 2 A faculty was sought for substantial works to a grade II* listed church, comprising repairs to external failing stonework and internal reordering following an earlier faculty in 2019. The Chancellor visited the church for what was styled an informal hearing. Applying the Duffield framework, and the presumption against alterations to listed churches, the chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated a justification which outweighed the likely harm. He granted a faculty subject to detailed approval of certain reserved matters. [Holy Trinity Hastings [2025] ECC Chichester 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary with St. Edward Leyton [2025] ECC Chd 3 The petitioners sought permission to reorder St Mary’s, a Grade II* listed church, by removing the nave pews and other Victorian furnishings and replacing them with chairs. The Chancellor concluded that although some harm would be caused to the church’s historic character, this was justified by the benefits and the needs addressed by the reordering. [Re St. Mary with St. Edward Leyton [2025] ECC Chd 3 (2)] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Other building works, including re-roofing

Re St. Paul North Shore Blackpool [2024] ECC Bla 6 The Petitioners sought to convert the existing gentlemen’s toilet block into an office and to rebuild the ladies’ toilets, on the south side of the altar and adjoining a private house. The neighbours at the adjoining house wrote a letter of objection, their main objection being noise disturbance. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but subject to to conditions. [Re St. Paul North Shore Blackpool [2024] ECC Bla 6] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. James Southlake [2025] ECC Oxf 1 The parish wished 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. There were two objections from neighbouring residents, alleging nuisance from noise created by those already using the church land. 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. [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 authorise 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 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 was outweighed by the practical need for modern facilities within the building. Re St. Mary the Virgin Bruton [2025] ECC B&W 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re All Saints Rainford [2025] ECC Liv 1 An application had been made for a faculty to authorise retrospectively the display of illuminated symbols on the church tower at certain times of the year, for example, an illuminated cross during the Advent and Christmas seasons. A complaint was made by a local resident, living approximately 400-500m away, claiming, inter alia, light pollution and safety concerns. The Chancellor determined that a faculty should be granted, subject to conditions as to limits on the timing of the illumination and to the petitioner first obtaining planning consent. [Re All Saints Rainford [2025] ECC Liv 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Bartholomew Kirkwhelpington [2025] ECC New 1 The proposals were the replacement of the sandstone paving of the chancel floor with York stone slabs; repairs to the organ; fitting of castors to the organ and relocation to the front of the nave; removal of two pews from the front of the nave; and laying up the Women’s Royal British Legion Flag. The Chancellor determined that the existing floor did not need complete replacement and directed that a faculty would be granted for the replacement of damaged slabs with local stone of a similar type to that existing. [Re St. Bartholomew Kirkwhelpington [2025] ECC New 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Stoke by Nayland [2025] ECC SEI 3 The incumbent and Churchwarden sought permission to carry out masonry repairs to the nave south clerestory. The Chancellor would not normally have prepared a judgment but he was concerned about comments from the visiting architect. He therefore granted a faculty without requiring a consistory court, because in view of the urgency, as the Church was on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. [Re St. Mary Stoke by Nayland [2025] ECC SEI 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Headington [2025] ECC Oxf 5 Approval was sought for: (1) the creation of an extension to the north side of the church, accommodating a vestry and two WCs; and (2) extensive works of repair. Following the condemnation and demolition of the former church hall in 2017, the church had no accessible toilets or facilities for catering for small group activities. Notwithstanding the reservations of the Twentieth Century Society concerning the design of the extension, the Chancellor granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary Headington [2025] ECC Oxf 5] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. John the Evangelist Ranmoor [2025] ECC She 3 Extensive internal and external repairs to the tower and spire were 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 Chancellor granted a faculty. [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 wished 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 also partly obscured a stained glass window in the baptistry. The Chancellor granted a faculty. [Re St. John the Evangelist Ranmoor [2025] ECC She 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Gosforth [2025] ECC Car 6 The petition sought faculties for works at the Grade I listed church, including pew removal, creation of a dais, installation of a handrail and removable ramp, AV equipment, LED lighting, and a timer lock. Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor considered only the pew removal and dais.  Conditions were imposed requiring secure long-term storage of removed pews, retention of the timber chancel rail, and agreed arrangements for storing and handling the removable ramp. The faculty was therefore granted subject to those conditions. [Re St. Mary Gosforth [2025] ECC Car 6] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary-Le-Strand London [2025] ECC Lon 2 Proposed redevelopment of undercroft to provide community room with supporting facilities; insertion of a lift and stairs between levels, reordering nave to restore original eighteenth century design, reinstatement of original paint scheme to chancel and ceiling; shortening of pews to facilitate usage of the area with insertion of a tea point at the west end; provision of step-free access to nave and undercroft levels including new ramps and terrace. Faculty granted subject to conditions requiring review and approval by DAC of  detailed matters and proof of financial viability; regard to be had to NCZ and planning conditions. [Re St. Mary-Le-Strand London [2025] ECC Lon 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Mary Mortlake [2025] ECC Swk 5 The Team Vicar and Churchwardens sought a faculty for a new screen dividing the north aisle from the rest of the church and for the extension and refurbishment of the kitchen in the north aisle of the Grade II* listed church. The church’s interior was extensively reordered in 1979 by the notable architects Maguire and Murray, whose distinctive screen enclosed the north aisle. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that the proposals would cause only modest harm to the building’s significance, outweighed by clear benefits to worship, mission, and community use. A faculty was granted subject to DAC agreement on kitchen layout details, with completion required within twelve months. [Re St. Mary Mortlake [2025] ECC Swk 5] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Removal and replacement of pews

Re St. John the Apostle Whetstone [2025] ECC Lon 1 The proposal was to remove twenty-eight pews and four choir frontals and to replace them with moveable, stackable ‘Theo’ chairs with upholstered seats.  The Chancellor considered that the harm to the church caused by the removal of the pews would be low to moderate. He granted a faculty subject to a condition that the new chairs should be unupholstered, unless otherwise ordered by the court. He gave the petitioners three weeks in which to put forward further detailed representations regarding upholstered seats to be considered by the Victorian Society and the Chancellor. [Re St. John the Apostle Whetstone [2025] ECC Lon 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon [2025] ECC B&W 1 The proposal was to remove the pews in the chancel (including children’s pews) and nave, which were introduced in a 1902 re-ordering, and replace them with chairs, and to move eastward the historic pews (relegated in 1902 to the rear of the nave), in order to create spaces for flexible use in the chancel and at the west end of the nave. The Chancellor decided that the Petitioners had established a need for change, if the church was to fulfil its role as a centre for worship and mission and to be of service to the local community, and that the need outweighed the harm to the historical significance of the church. [Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon [2025] ECC B&W 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Magdalene Lillington [2025] ECC Cov 2 The PCC petitioned to remove the remaining century-old pews from the Grade II listed church to create flexible seating for wider community use. Applying the principles from Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2012], the Chancellor found no harm to the church’s historical or architectural significance. The upholstery concerns were satisfactorily addressed, and the font move was reversible. Accordingly, the Chancellor granted the faculty as requested. [Re St. Mary Magdalene Lillington [2025] ECC Cov 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary the Virgin Marshfield [2025] ECC Bri 2 The petition sought a faculty for the construction of cupboards and the removal of a total of 6 pews in the north and south aisles of the church to create extra space and enhance the existing worship space. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the proposals would eradicate the unsightly clutter which had accumulated in a few of the pews, would create a better walkway to the vestry and would enhance the community use at the building. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Marshfield [2025] ECC Bri 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Net zero issues

Re Christ Church Wesham [2024] ECC Bla 5 The petitioners wished to replace the church’s condemned wall-mounted heaters with a new boiler and wet system with convector heaters. They also sought retrospective permission for the repair of a vandalised stained-glass window in the south aisle. The DAC took the view that the explanation provided of how, in formulating the proposal, the Church had had due regard to the net zero guidance issued by the Church Buildings Council was adequate. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to information being provided by the end of January 2025 as to how the cost of the heating works would be funded. [Re Christ Church Wesham [2024] ECC Bla 5] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Christ Church Chineham [2025] ECC Win 1 The Consistory Court of the Diocese of Winchester reviewed a retrospective application for a faculty to approve the installation of two gas boilers at Christ Church, Chineham. The church, a modern community hub, had experienced failure of its old boilers, leading the Petitioners to replace them without prior approval, believing the work was urgent. The court criticized their decision as a clear breach of faculty law, calling it “naïve.” A key issue was the Petitioners’ failure to consider the Church of England’s Net Zero Guidance. Despite an energy audit suggesting air source heat pumps (ASHPs) as a sustainable alternative, the Petitioners dismissed this advice without detailed analysis, opting for gas boilers driven by cost and convenience. They failed to obtain meaningful quotes for greener options until after the court’s intervention. Although the court noted inconsistent communication from the DAC, it held the Petitioners responsible for ensuring compliance. While the court ruled that a faculty would not have been granted if properly sought, it allowed the boilers to remain temporarily due to the practical difficulty of removing them before winter. A faculty was granted for three years, with the condition that the church offset carbon emissions and explore sustainable heating options. [Re Christ Church Chineham [2025] ECC Win 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Magdalene Woodstock [2025] ECC Oxf 4 The Parochial Church Council wished to install solar panels on the roofs of the south nave and the south aisle of the Grade II* listed church. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that views of the proposed panels would be extremely restricted due to the shallow slopes of the roofs behind a parapet and also tree cover.  [Re St., Mary Magdalene Woodstock [2025] ECC Oxf 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].

See also Re St. Bartholomew Colne.

Church Treasures/Sale of Paintings/Loans/Memorials

Re St. Michael Bowness-on-Solway [2025] ECC Car 7 Mr. Stephen Hinks petitioned on behalf of Mrs. Mary Maxwell-Irving, for permission to hang in the church a heraldic hatchment in memory of her late husband, Dr Alistair M. T. Maxwell-Irving. The Chancellor found the Maxwell-Irving family’s historic contributions to the church, together with Dr Maxwell-Irving’s scholarly and public service record, satisfied that test. The hatchment would complement existing heraldic windows and cause no harm to the church’s significance. Rejecting arguments of anachronism, he held continuity with tradition a virtue and directed that the faculty be granted. [Re St. Michael Bowness-on-Solway [2025] ECC Car 7] [Top of post].

Audio Visual Equipment

Re St. Michael and St. Mary Magdalene Easthampstead [2025] ECC Oxf 8 The Rector and churchwardens applied for a faculty for the installation of wall-mounted television screens on either side of the chancel arch. The Chancellor held that any harm to the significance of the church was outweighed by the benefits of TV screens, which were more suitable in the context of this particular church than a retractable projector screen. He granted a faculty for a trial period of five years in the first instance. [Re St. Michael and St. Mary Magdalene Easthampstead [2025] ECC Oxf 8] [Top of post].

Exhumation

Errors in burial

St. Helen Sefton [2025] ECC Liv 4 By mistake, the same burial plot had been reserved for two families, the reservations being made 30 years apart. After the mistake came to light, an application was made to exhume the ashes interred in 2008 and 2009, and to reinter them elsewhere in the churchyard. Two members of the second family objected, but the Chancellor considered that greater harm would be caused to the first family if the petition were refused. He therefore granted a faculty. [Re St. Helen Sefton [2024] ECC Liv 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Rougham [2025] ECC SEI 1 The petitioners wished to exhume the ashes of their mother, Mrs. Rose, from Roughan churchyard and reinter the ashes in Beyton churchyard. Owing to the family tension, the petitioners felt that the only solution was to exhume Mrs. Rose’s ashes and inter them in a different churchyard with the ashes of her husband, who had recently died. The Chancellor considered that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to allow a family grave to be created for the remains of Mrs. Rose and her husband. [Re St. Mary Rougham [2025] ECC SEI 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Uggeshall [2025] ECC SEI 2 The person whose cremated remains were the subject of the petition had lived in London and had died suddenly at the age of 56. His family had been persuaded by a close friend of the deceased, who lived next to the churchyard in Uggeshall in Suffolk, to have the deceased ashes interred in the churchyard there. The family subsequently fell out with the friend after, as they alleged, he caused a motor accident, as a result of which one family member was admitted to hospital, and another was treated for shock. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, as he considered that none of these reasons were sufficiently exceptional to justify exhumation. [Re St. Mary Uggeshall [2025] ECC SEI 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Exhumation of a Baby [2024] ECC Exe 1 A baby girl had died at birth, though a twin had survived. The baby had been buried in the churchyard of a village in Devon. Six months after the burial, the mother had managed to free herself from her relationship with the father of the baby, from whom she had suffered domestic abuse for two years and she sought help from local domestic abuse professionals and the police. The Chancellor was satisfied that the need to protect the mother and her surviving daughter was sufficient to establish an exception to the general principle against exhumation, and he therefore granted a faculty. [Re Exhumation of a Baby [2024] ECC Exe 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Gravesend and Milton Cemetery [2025] ECC Roc 1 The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her husband exhumed from the consecrated part of the Gravesend and Milton Cemetery and reinterred in a plot in a cemetery in France where she and her husband’s family lived. There was a double compartment in the casket containing the deceased’s ashes, where it was intended that the petitioner’s ashes would be added in due course. The Chancellor, following the guidelines in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, could not find any exceptional circumstances to override the normal presumption of permanence of Christian burial and he therefore refused to grant a faculty. [Re Gravesend and Milton Cemetery [2025] ECC Roc 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re An Exhumation [2025] ECC Por 1 On the day before an interment of ashes, a relative of the deceased pointed out to the curate that the hole prepared for the ashes was not in the right plot. After consultation between the curate and the rector, a hole was dug in the correct plot. At a service for the interment of the ashes, the family left after the ashes (inside a bag) had been placed in the correct plot which had been dug and before the plot was filled in. The verger subsequently insisted that the ashes were in the wrong plot and, after consultation with the rector and the curate, the ashes were interred in the first plot. When the family was informed that the ashes had been moved, they said that the plot where the ashes had been place at the interment service was the correct plot. The rector, without consulting the archdeacon or the Diocesan Registry, dug up the ashes and interred them in the correct plot. He then applied for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor accepted that there had been a mistake, but pointed out that an exhumation should not take place without proper authority, and he ordered the rector to pay the costs of the preparation of the judgment. [Re An Exhumation [2025] ECC Por 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re A Burial [2025] ECC Bri 1 A lady (“XY”) in her 90s had lived with her sister and brother-in-law since 1988. The sister and brother-in-law had both died and were buried in the same grave. It had always been understood by XY and her family that XY would be buried in a grave next to her sister and brother-in-law. Unfortunately, someone else was buried in the grave intended for XY. When a close friend of XY discovered this, she applied for a faculty for the remains of the person who had been interred in the grave informally reserved for XY to be exhumed (with the consent of that person’s family) and reinterred in another grave next to relatives, so that in due time XY’s body could be buried in the intended grave. The Chancellor accepted that a mistake had been made and he granted a faculty. [Re A Burial [2025] ECC Bri 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 10 There was an unopposed petition concerning a mother’s request to exhume the remains of her baby son, Robbie, who died in 2005 aged three weeks and was buried in the consecrated section of Kidlington Parish Burial Ground. The court accepted her intentions for the ashes, despite their divergence from traditional Anglican practice. A faculty was granted subject to conditions. [Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 10] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Other

Re St. John the Baptist Belleau [2025] ECC Lin 1 The petitioner’s son had died as a result of a house fire in 1992 and was buried in the churchyard at Belleau. The petitioner’s father had tended to grave until he was no longer able to do so due to problems in the churchyard, including sunken graves, molehills and red ants. The Chancellor decided that the creation of the family grave was a sufficient exceptional reason to allow exhumation and reinterment. [Re St. John the Baptist Belleau [2025] ECC Lin 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 3 The petitioner’s son had died aged 16 in 2011 after being struck by a car driven by a drunken driver. His school had put pressure on the petitioner to have a funeral carried out before the GCSE period started, and the Coroner had told the petitioner that the only option at the time was burial. The Chancellor considered that “there was a fundamental mistake of fact on the part of the petitioner as to the nature of the grave plot in which she had agreed to have her son’s body interred, and its legal consequences”. This and a number of additional special factors set out in the judgment led the Chancellor to decide that it was appropriate to grant a faculty. [Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Lambeth Cemetery [2025] ECC Swk 2 In distressing circumstances, the remains of a child (A) aged 8 had been buried in the consecrated part of a local authority cemetery. The Chancellor held that there were exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation as proposed. He also permitted the exhumation of the ashes of the boy’s uncle; these had been buried in the same grave as A because of the family relationship. The Chancellor disagreed with the view of the Legal Advisory Commission that the scattering of ashes was necessarily contrary to Canon Law, taking the view that this depended on whether it was reverent or not. He also explained that the fact that an exclusive right of burial had come to an end did not end the protection of the grave by the Consistory Court, although it might be the case that any memorial could be removed. [Re Lambeth Cemetery [2025] ECC Swk 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Kingston Cemetery Fratton [2025] ECC Por 2 A boy had died, aged 8, in 2023. Under pressure from the boy’s grandmother his body was buried near relatives in Kingston Cemetery. Before the date for exhumation, the father, who had separated from his wife, withdrew his consent, stating that he had recently become a Christian and “the situation does not feel right to me.” The Chancellor set aside the faculty for exhumation and referred the case to the Deputy Chancellor, who considered that there were exceptional grounds to grant a faculty for exhumation and cremation. It had been a mistake in 2023 for the boy’s body to be buried in consecrated ground when the parents had previously declared themselves to be atheists. [Re Kingston Cemetery Fratton [2025] ECC Por 2] [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. The Area Dean did not support the petition. 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 itself 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 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. [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 to be exhumed from the cemetery at Gravesend for reinterment in France. The petitioner now sought permission to appeal and 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, the Chancellor concluded that it would be wrong to grant the petition. [ELA link to judgment – a very large file, 3,904 KB] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Bingham Cemetery (No. 2) [2025] ECC S&N 3 In 2018, the petitioner’s mother had made an application to exhume the remains of her daughter (who had died aged 6 months) and husband from a consecrated area of Bingham Cemetery, which had been the usual place for burial of those who died in the village of Gamston, a few miles away. The petition had been refused. The petitioner therefore now sought permission for the exhumation of the remains of her sister and father and for the remains to be interred in the same grave as her mother at Wilford Hill. The judgment includes a discussion of the doctrine of res judicata, but aside from that the Chancellor could find no exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty. [Re Bingham Cemetery (No. 2) [2025] ECC S&N 3] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Newark Cemetery [2025] ECC SN 2 The petitioner’s parents both originated from Hong Kong, but had spent their married life in Newark. After the petitioner’s mother had died, her father moved back to Hong Kong. He died there and was buried in Tai Po in 2011, and it was said that his dying wish was for his wife’s remains to be exhumed and cremated and for the ashes to be interred in his gave in Tai Po. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. The petitioner’s mother’s remains had been buried for thirty years and exhumation would be likely to be difficult due to the effects of decay. Re Newark Cemetery [2025] ECC SN 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Ewhurst Cemetery [2025] ECC Gui 2 The petitioner’s parents had always intended to be buried in the same grave. Her father had died and was buried in Ewhurst Cemetery in 1994. Her mother died in November 2024 and on the day of the funeral it was found that it was impossible for her father’s grave to be dug for the interment of her mother as the ground was waterlogged. It was therefore necessary for the petitioner’s mother to be buried in a another grave in the cemetery. The Chancellor determined that there were sufficient unusual and exceptional circumstances to justify the exhumation and reinterment, and she therefore granted a faculty. [Re Ewhurst Cemetery [2025] ECC Gui 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Kirby Enid Butcher [2025] ECC Car 5 A petition was brought to permit the exhumation of the remains of baby Kirby Enid Butcher, stillborn in 2004 and buried in Ireleth Cemetery. The Chancellor reaffirmed the presumption of permanence of Christian burial but held that these exceptional circumstances plainly justified a faculty. Exhumation would restore dignity by ensuring Kirby’s remains were respectfully reunited and laid properly to rest in the family grave. The Council, whose workers were responsible for disturbing Kirby’s remains, were directed to pay the costs of the petition and of the exhumation.” [Re Kirby Enid Butcher [2025] ECC Car 5] ] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Holy Trinity Trowbridge St. Thomas [2025] ECC Sal 1 Dr Susan and Carol Dawson petitioned for a faculty to exhume their mother Margaret Dawson’s cremated remains from Holy Trinity Churchyard, Trowbridge, to scatter them at Portchester Crematorium, where other family ashes had been scattered. The ashes had been interred in 1977, and their father—who arranged the burial—died in 2019. The petitioners argued that their mother’s Portsmouth roots, the church’s diminished use, and family connections to Portchester justified the move. Deputy Chancellor Jeremy Rawlings, refused the petition, and the court reaffirmed the presumption of permanence in Christian burial, emphasizing respect for the original resting place. [Re Holy Trinity Trowbridge St. Thomas [2025] ECC Sal 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Update: 16 December 2025 at 14:35: Re Holy Trinity Trowbridge St. Thomas [2025] ECC Sal 1 [Revised] is a revised version of the Trowbridge judgment with corrections to a small number of typographical errors pointed out by the petitioner. 

Churchyards and burials

Development of churchyard

Re St. Mary East Molesey [2025] ECC Gui 1 The petitioners wished to relocate 64 headstones from the centre of the churchyard to its perimeter, in order to create “a safe and welcoming outdoor space for events, activities and quiet reflection”. The Chancellor granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary East Molesey [2025] ECC Gui 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

General Cemetery Act 2025 A Bill to make new provision for the regulation and management of the General Cemetery Company upon its registration under the Companies Act 2006; to permit the transfer of the ownership and management of Kensal Green Cemetery and West London Crematorium to a charity; and to confer powers upon the General Cemetery Company to extinguish rights of burial and disturb human remains in Kensal Green Cemetery for the purpose of increasing the space for interments; and for connected purposes. Royal Assent on 27 October. [Top]

Designation of closed churchyard

See Privy Council Business. [Considered at 10 Meetings of Privy Council]

Churchyard Regulations

Re Holy Trinity Langdale [2025] ECC Car 1 The petitioner sought to install a headstone commemorating two members of his family whose ashes were scattered at a local estate. The intention was for the stone to be placed with memorials to other members of the family whose wishes could not be ascertained. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He also declined an amended proposal to attach a white marble plaque to an existing family memorial. [Re Holy Trinity Langdale [2025] ECC Car 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Chew Magna Churchyard [2025] ECC B&W 2 A breach of the churchyards regulations had been referred to the Chancellor. A memorial had been installed in the churchyard, without waiting for the Rector’s decision, and the design included a red poppy with green leaves. On compassionate grounds, the Chancellor decided that the colouring of the red poppy could remain, but that the green colouring should be removed. [Re Chew Magna Churchyard [2025] ECC B&W 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Paul Bentley Common [2025] ECC Chd 1 The petitioner’s son committed suicide in 2013. The petitioner’s son’s ashes were not buried in Blackmore, because it was alleged that the then incumbent would not conduct a funeral there. The Chancellor decided that there were special circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: the petitioner’s son had never lived at Bentley Common, nor indicated that he wished to be buried there; Blackmore was his home; reinterment at Blackmore would create a family grave; and at the time of the son’s death the situation at Blackmore had been far from ideal. [Re St. Paul Bentley Common [2025] ECC Chd 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Michael & All Angels Woolmer Green [2025] ECC StA 1 The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her parents, who were part of the Travelling Community. The Chancellor decided that the amended specification should be approved: “I consider that an appropriate balance has been struck in this case between allowing expression of cultural traditions and beliefs of the Travelling Community and taking into consideration the needs of the settled community.” [Re St. Michael & All Angels Woolmer Green [2025] ECC StA 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Tuxford War Memorial [2025] ECC S&N 1 A private individual applied for a faculty to authorise the cleaning of the war memorial in Tuxford churchyard and the re-colouring of the inscriptions. The Chancellor accepted that the petition had a sufficient interest to present the petition and that investigations after the lodging of the petition to establish ownership were unsuccessful. [Re Tuxford War Memorial [2025] ECC S&N 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2025] ECC She 2 The petitioners’ baby boy had died less than an hour after being born and his remains had been buried in the churchyard. The Petitioners wished to introduce a memorial of black granite (which complied with the diocesan churchyard rules) and kerbs, with a number of sentiments inscribed on the memorial. The Chancellor approved the words, the kerbing, and two etched images coloured blue.  [Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2025] ECC She 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Chad Bagnall [2025] ECC Lic 2 Creation of dedicated area for interment of cremated remains; Grade II listed church in conservation area; churchyard closed to new burials; Faculty granted subject to conditions: (i) memorial plaques only permitted (no standing headstones); (ii) maximum size of 450mm square; (iii) individual plots to be laid out in rows, each plot no more than 600mm square; (iv) interments to be directly into the ground, with perishable container able to be permitted by incumbent if pastoral circumstances justify this; and (v) no interments to be permitted outside the area authorised by this faculty, other than cremated remains authorised to be interred in existing graves of family members. Memorials not complying with conditions liable to be removed at the Order of the Court. [Re St. Chad Bagnall [2025] ECC Lic 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re Christ Church Lower Broadheath [2025] ECC Wor 3 Unauthorized replacement of tarmac path by brick paving, installation of two black powder-coated metal handrails to the chancel steps, and pollarding/felling of lime trees; Church listed Grade II, built 1903-4; applications for confirmatory faculties for works undertaken; works undertaken without a faculty having been granted are unlawful; no objections, but hearing in person ordered in view of unlawful nature of works; Duffield principles (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158) considered; confirmatory faculty granted for tree works, which had been necessary, though noting that List B approval could have been sought to these works prior to their being undertaken; need for improved path accepted, but pink brick paving with dark grey edging and yellow interstitial sand not in keeping with the natural stonework of the church; restoration order considered but would be disproportionate; faculty granted subject to condition requiring replacement of yellow sand by a darker sand to be approved by the DAC; chancel step handrails installed without faculty; DAC unhappy with the rails, which did not comply with Part K of Building Regulations; railings considered to be harmful to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and out of keeping with high quality ‘Arts & Crafts’ style woodwork nearby; restoration order made for removal of the handrails within two years, to allow time for design and approval of more fitting rails. Recommendations made to improve parish and faculty administration; costs of hearing to be borne by the PCC. [Top of section] [Top of post]

 Re All Saints Rangemore [2025] ECC Lic 3 Memorial in form not within Lichfield Diocesan Churchyard Regulations; Deceased was David Myers, one of the ‘Hairy Bikers’; memorial comprising wider than usual headstone and full kerb, including raised grave cover or ledger, in mid-grey and lavender blue polished granite; alternative local Hollington and other sandstones considered, though Hollington not currently quarried; significant variety of stone types already in use in memorials in the churchyard noted; faculty granted subject to condition that the granite be not polished; raised platform approved as consistent with other memorials in the churchyard; proposals to be viewed holistically, noting that approval of individual features in isolation might not be forthcoming elsewhere. [Re All Saints Rangemore [2025] ECC Lic 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Giles Graffham [2025] ECC Chichester 3 The petitioners sought a confirmatory faculty for a circular tablet which they had placed on their parents’ grave. The stonemason who fabricated the tablet was unaware it was for use in a consecrated churchyard and was not involved in its introduction. He nonetheless offered to carry out alterations, at no cost to the petitioners, to ameliorate some of its more objectionable features. With some reservations on both sides, the petitioners and priest-in-charge indicated they would consent to the compromise proposed. The chancellor with some reluctance granted a confirmatory faculty on condition the amelioration took place. He noted the petitioners’ offer to make a donation to charity equal to the cost of the stonemason’s labour and emphasised that this was an exceptional case which did not set any form of precedent. [Re St. Giles Graffham [2025] ECC Chichester 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re East Chiltington [2025] ECC Chichester 1 The petitioner sought a confirmatory faculty for the retention of two ‘pavers’ which he had caused to be placed, without permission, on the graves of two family members. The parish objected to their retention on the grounds, inter alia, that they were out of place with their surroundings. The petitioners claimed ‘grandfather rights’ on the basis that the pavers were placed on the grave some while ago. The chancellor considered the objections compelling and concluded that the petitioner had not discharged his burden of proof for the retention of the pavers. The petition was dismissed. [Re East Chiltington [2025] ECC Chichester 1][Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Peter & St. Paul Reepham [2025] ECC Lin 5 The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a memorial of polished black granite with incised gold leaf lettering: “In my judgement polished black granite memorials with gold lettering even on one memorial stone in this churchyard would break up the sense of the churchyard being a cohesive whole: it would work against the sense that this was a place of peace and rest.” [Re St. Peter & St. Paul Reepham [2025] ECC Lin 5] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Reservation of grave space

Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2 The petitioner wished to reserve for himself and his wife a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of his mother, who had died a few months previously. The Chancellor determined that, in view of the PCC’s plans to reuse part of the churchyard for burials to meet the future needs of the parish, it was appropriate for him to grant a faculty. [Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. Paul Caton-with-Littledale [2025] ECC Bla 2 The Petitioners, aged 79 and 81, both resident within the parish and on the church electoral roll, applied for the reservation of a double burial plot for the usual period (in the Diocese of Blackburn) of 25 years. Sufficient space remained within the churchyard for some five years’ future burials, but additional land was available for consecration. Bearing in mind the PCC’s decision, the availability of additional land and the age of the petitioners, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for the full period of 25 years. [Re St. Paul Caton-with-Littledale [2025] ECC Bla 2] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. Martin Ryarsh [2025] ECC Roc 2 There were two applications to reserve grave spaces in a churchyard where there was space for only two to three more years of interments. In the first case, a man aged 54, who did not live in the parish and was not on the electoral roll, wished to reserve a grave for himself and his son aged 21. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty.

In the second case, the petitioner, who was aged 85 and lived in the parish and attended the church, wished to reserve a double-depth grave for herself and her husband aged 88. After the petition was presented, the petitioner’s husband had died and was buried in the churchyard. However, the Chancellor stated that, had the petitioner’s husband not died, the Chancellor would have granted a faculty in view of the couple’s entitlement to burial in the churchyard and their advanced ages. [Re St. Martin Ryarsh [2025] ECC Roc 2] [[Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. John the Evangelist Houghton [2025] ECC Car 4 The petitioners sought faculties to reserve grave spaces in the churchyard, where it was estimated that only four years’ burial capacity remained. All petitions had PCC support; one was objected to by another petitioner, though in respectful terms. The Chancellor reviewed the principles in Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2 and related authorities, which establish that where space is limited, faculties will not normally be granted unless exceptional circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” are shown. The burden lay on each petitioner. Mr. Bainbridge, on the electoral roll and with strong family connections, relied on his lifelong association with the church and community service. Mr. McAllen, a former vicar, pointed to over a decade’s ministry and continued worship. Mr. Wolstencroft, a parishioner of 65 years and long-serving lay leader, emphasised his extensive service. The Chancellor recognised all three as having longstanding and valuable ties with the church but concluded that none demonstrated circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify grave reservations where capacity was so restricted. With regret, all three petitions were refused. No criticism of character or parish connection was intended. [Re St. John the Evangelist Houghton [2025] ECC Car 4] [ [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Tolleshunt Knights Cemetery [2025] ECC Chd 2 The Petitioner sought a Faculty to reserve a double grave space in Tolleshunt Knights Cemetery for herself and her husband, citing long-standing connections with the adjacent Eastern Orthodox Monastery of St John the Baptist. She was not resident in the parish, had no link with its parish churches, and therefore had no legal right of burial. The Chancellor, though sympathetic, found the PCC’s policy reasonable and justified. She doubted whether a Faculty could lawfully be granted without the Team Rector’s consent, and held that, even if such power existed, exceptional circumstances would be required to override the policy, and none had been shown. The petition was therefore refused. [Re Tolleshunt Knights Cemetery [2025] ECC Chd 2]

Re St. Nicholas Ulceby [2025] ECC Lin 2 The Rural Dean sought the Chancellor’s directions on how to proceed where Mr & Mrs I wished to get approval now for their proposed memorial stones to be placed over their graves (previously reserved by faculty) at the time of their deaths. The Chancellor indicated that he could not grant a Faculty for a memorial which may not be erected for many years, without knowing the circumstances in which that memorial will be set at the time it is required. [Re St. Nicholas Ulceby [2025] ECC Lin 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St Mary Claxby [2025] ECC Lin 4 The family of the late Stephen Cade petitioned for a faculty to permit a grave space to receive his cremated remains so that a larger memorial stone could set out the story of his family relationships and to have space for Mrs Cade’s ashes and for her details to be added to the memorial stone when the time comes. The Chancellor refused to grant the faculty. [Re St Mary Claxby [2025] ECC Lin 4] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. Mary and St. Nicholas Wrangle [2025] ECC Lin 3 The churchwarden, administrator and Ms Judy Bell (daughter of the deceased) petitioned for a faculty to permit a grave space to receive the cremated remains of Norman Edwin Gostelow in order to be able to erect a full-sized upright memorial to match that of another family member. The Chancellor considered that efficient use of the land the churchyard has for burials must be made, and permitting a space for a full burial to be taken by cremated remains would be unfair given that there was a Garden of Remembrance available. The Chancellor refused to grant the faculty. [Re St. Mary and St. Nicholas Wrangle [2025] ECC Lin 3] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Trees

Re All Saints Feathertone [2025] ECC Lee 1 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council sought a confirmatory faculty for felling and removing an ash tree without lawful authority [1]. Hill Ch. concluded “it is appropriate to grant a confirmatory faculty in this instance. I do so despite my concerns about the Council’s widespread and institutional ignorance of the relevant law and procedure concerning works affecting trees in closed churchyards”. He allowed the Council seven days to make written representations on costs [36]. [Re All Saints Feathertone [2025] ECC Lee 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re All Saints Emberton [2025] ECC  Oxf  9 The churchwardens of the Grade II* listed All Saints, Emberton, sought a faculty to fell a healthy, mature western red cedar overhanging a neighbouring property. A faculty was granted subject to conditions, including the planting and nurturing of at least one replacement conifer within the next growing season. [Re All Saints Emberton [2025] ECC Oxf 9] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. Owen Bromham [2025] ECC StA 2 The churchwardens and incumbent (Petitioners) petitioned for a faculty to remove brick edging and loose stones next to a grave (Decoration). The Chancellor held that introducing the Decorations was a trespass (as Mr Watt acknowledged authorisation was required), and their removal required a faculty (Re St Mary the Virgin, Burghfield). The Court considered that leaving matters unresolved is unfair to those complying and risks creating precedent. Accordingly, a faculty was granted for the removal of the Decorations by 2 February 2026 by either Mr Watt or the Petitioners, who will store the Decorations for two months for Mr Watt’s retrieval, and if not claimed, will be deemed abandoned. [Re St. Bridget with St. Thomas Wavertree [2025] ECC Liv 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Environmental Permit

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.

Organs

 

 

Fonts

Re St. Mary Ellesmere [2025] ECC Lic 4 There was a petition to decommission a Giles Gilbert Scott font located in a semi-enclosed baptistery and to introduce a portable font (regularising the long-standing position of using a portable font). The Deputy Chancellor held that there were numerous factors which supported granting a faculty in respect of a replacement portable font but declined formally to decommission the Scott font.” [Re St. Mary Ellesmere [2025] ECC Lic 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. John the Evangelist Hurst Green [2025] ECC Swk 3  Removal of plinth beneath font, and repositioning of font to one side at west end of church; church dating from 1913, by John Oldrid Scott; not listed; original font and plinth repositioned in 1962 to current location centrally at west end of nave; relocation would enable use of the west end of the nave for more flexible community uses; plinth said to present trip hazard; health and safety issues considered; Duffield principles considered (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158); written objections considered; limited harm occasioned by relocation of font considered to be outweighed by benefits of the proposal; faculty granted. [Re St. John the Evangelist Hurst Green [2025] ECC Swk 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

See also Re St. Paul Heslington and Re St. Mary Magdalene Lillington.

Bells

Re St. Mary Magdalene Richmond [2025] ECC Swk 4 Church Bells; proposal to remodel three existing bells and introduce five new bells. Faculty granted subject to condition that a record, including a sound recording, be made of the existing bells before work commences. [Re St. Mary Magdalene Richmond [2025] ECC Swk 4] [Post].

Privy Council Business

5 February 2025

  • 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.

12 March 2025

  • Burial Act 1853 (Notice):An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in St Peters Churchyard, Clayworth, Retford, Nottinghamshire.

2 April 2025

  • Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St James’ Churchyard, Church Hill, West End, Southampton, Hampshire; St John the Evangelist Churchyard, Tatworth, Somerset; St Cuthbert’s Churchyard, Beltingham; St Michael the Archangel Churchyard, Emley, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire; St Leonard’s Churchyard, Southoe, St Neots, Cambridgeshire; St Mary’s Church Old Churchyard, Sturmer, Essex; Holy Trinity Church Churchyard, West End.

6 May 2025

  • Burial Act 1853 (Notice): An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of 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 1853 (Final) Order: An Order prohibiting further burials in:- St Margaret’s Church Old Churchyard, Fleggburgh, Norfolk; St Peters Churchyard, Clayworth, Retford,  Nottinghamshire.

11 June 2025

  • Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: Church of St Mary Old Churchyard, Tunstead, Norfolk; St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Gosport, Hampshire; St Andrew’s Churchyard, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire.

9 July 2025

  • 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

15 October 2025

BURIALS Burial Act 1853 (Notice) An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Michael’s Church Churchyard, Fobbing, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex; St Mary de Wyche Church Churchyard, Wychbold, Droitwich, Worcestershire; St Mary’s Churchyard, Church Street, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire; St John the Baptist Churchyard, Hammerwich, Burntwood, Staffordshire.

Burial Act 1853 (Final) An Order prohibiting further burials in: Church of St Mary Old Churchyard, Tunstead, Norfolk; St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Gosport, Hampshire; St Andrew’s Churchyard, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire.

Burial Act 1855 (Variation) Order varying an Order dated 8th February 2018 prohibiting further burials in the Churchyard of St Luke’s Church, Tiptree, Colchester, Essex.

12 November 2025

Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Thomas Becket Church Churchyard, Bridford, Exeter, Devon ; and St Mary’s Churchyard, Thundridge, Hertfordshire.

10 December 2025

  • Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St Michael’s Church Churchyard, Fobbing, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex; St Mary de Wyche Church Churchyard, Wychbold, Droitwich, Worcestershire; and St Mary’s Churchyard, Church Street, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire.

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.

See also Re St. Bartholomew Colne.

CDM Decisions. 

  • Re: the Revd Tim Hastie-Smith (November 2025):  Review Decision pursuant to section 13(3). The Bishop of Lichfield, Dr Michael Ipgrave, was “clearly correct” in taking no further action against the Revd Tim Hastie-Smith concerning the handling of reports about John Smyth’s abusive behaviour, the President of Tribunals, Lord Justice Males, has ruled. “The critical point…is that the respondent did report appropriately the disclosures which were made to him…[17]”; “The respondent has been the subject of much unfavourable criticism. Now that the complaint against him has been fully investigated, it is apparent that this criticism was unfounded [20].”

Church Times: Bishop ‘correct’ not to act against vicar concerning handling of Smyth reports, tribunal rules (12 December 2025).

  • The Revd Anne-Marie Marsh (July 2025): 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.
  • The Revd Jonathan Aldwinckle (April 2025): Decision.
  • Re: the former Bishop of Liverpool (February 2025): Decision on publishing section 9 application. [Post]
  • The Revd Henry Curran (December 2024): Decision.

Penalties by consent

Name: The Revd DAVID SAMUEL AUSTEN
Diocese: Manchester
Date imposed: 26th September 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) = Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Injunction and Limited Prohibition for 1 year (with effect from 1st October 2025)

Name: The Revd ALAN DAVID HOUGH DAWSON
Diocese: Chester
Date imposed: 24th October 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Prohibition from ministry for 3 years (with effect from 6th November 2025)

Name: The Revd TIMOTHY LIAM BELL
Diocese: Chichester
Date imposed: 13th October 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) = Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Removal from office & Limited Prohibition for 7 years (with effect from 13 October 2025)

Name: The Revd ROBERT PRICE WELDON
Diocese: Canterbury
Date imposed: 4 October 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Limited prohibition for 5 years (with effect from 15th October 2025)

Name: The Revd NICHOLAS JOHN CLARKE
Diocese: Bath and Wells
Date imposed: 19th September 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Prohibition for life (with effect from 2 October 2025)

Name: The Revd ANDREW PROCTER
Diocese: Rochester
Date imposed: 26th September 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d)  – conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Injunction effective (with effect from 1st October 2025)

Name: The Reverend MICHAEL DAVID SIVA ERLEWYN-LAJEUNESSE
Diocese: Winchester
Date imposed: 25 July 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Limited Prohibition for 5 months

Name: The Revd PAUL KEVIN TRATHEN
Diocese: St Albans
Date imposed: 24th July 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(a)
Penalty: Removal from office and limited prohibition for 3 years

Name: The Revd ISAAC LAWRENCE  
Diocese: Carlisle
Date imposed: 10th June 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(aa) failing to comply with the duty under section 5 of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016 & 8(1)(c) neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office
Penalty: Rebuke

Name: The Revd RICHARD CHRISTOPHER BENTLEY JONES
Diocese: Hereford
Date imposed: 15th May 2025
Relevant CDM section: 30(1)(a)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life

Name: The Revd JAMES RODNEY HAITH
Diocese: London
Date imposed: 21st March 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Rebuke and Injunction

Name: The Revd Dr JAYSON DONAL RHODES
Diocese: Leeds
Date imposed: 4th March 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life (with effect from 4 March 2025)

Name: The Revd NICHOLAS KERR
Diocese: Rochester
Date imposed: 28th February 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d)  Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life (with effect from 7th March 2025)

Name: The Revd MATTHEW PAUL MCMURRAY
Diocese: Blackburn
Date imposed: 14th February 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s 8(1)(d): conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Removal from office, injunction & limited prohibition for 3 years (with effect from 1st April 2025)

Name: The Revd NICHOLAS JOHN CLARKE
Diocese: Bath and Wells
Date imposed: 27 January 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d)  Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty:  Limited Prohibition for 2 years (with effect from 27 January 2025)

Name: The Revd MICHAEL FRANCIS CHATFIELD 
Diocese: Province of Canterbury
Date imposed:  9 January 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s 8(1)(d): conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Rebuke and Injunction

Safeguarding

Forfeiture of honours

Mike Pilavachi was added to the current List of individuals whose honour has been revoked by the Sovereign, (August 2025). Pilavachi was awarded an MBE in the New Years Honours List of 2020 for services to young people. He joins Paula Vennels whose CBE (2019) was revoked in February 2024.

A broader consideration of The removal of titles and honours is in the House of Commons Research Briefing of 20 October, which is particularly pertinent to more recent events, albeit outwith the ambit of Law and Religion UK.

Safeguarding

Diocese of Carlisle

Diocese of Lincoln

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).

Church of Wales Statement on Anthony Pierce sentence, (12 March 2025).

Safeguarding in the Church in Wales: Anthony Pierce, (27 February 2025).

Reports from the Independent Reviewer

Individual Reports from the Independent Reviewer are to be found at House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (Independent Reviewer), scroll down.

CFCE Determinations

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 2026 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 5 February 2026. Reports of recent meetings are:

Visitations

Update: Archbishop Church in Wales – Further to the recent Church in Wales Press Release Statement on Bangor Cathedral Visitation Report implementation (supra) and the earlier statements concerning the Visitation, on the evening of 27 June 2025 a Statement was issued from the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Revd. Andrew John, announcing his immediate retirement as Archbishop of Wales and as Bishop of Bangor on August 31st. This was accompanied by a Statements on behalf of the Bench of Bishops of the Church in Wales, and by Professor Medwin Hughes, Chair of the Representative Body of the Church in Wales. (27 June 2025).

  • Winchester Cathedral: Bishop’s Review On 3 March 2025, the Rt. Rev. Philip Mounstephen, Bishop of Winchester, published his response to the Review he commissioned into events over recent months at Winchester Cathedral surrounding and subsequent to the departure of Dr Andy Lumsden as Director of Music. The Review was undertaken by Bishop Philip “using the powers given to [him] in ecclesiastical law. However, the responsibility for implementing its recommendations lie wholly with the Dean and Chapter, in recognition of their own statutory responsibilities, not least as Charity Trustees”.

  • Safeguarding in the Church in Wales The recent news on safeguarding in the Church in Wales in relation to Anthony Pierce, who was Bishop of Swansea and Brecon, will be seen as further evidence of the need for mandatory reporting and independent safeguarding. Further, in a letter to the cathedral chapter of Bangor that was leaked to Nation Cymru and reported in the Church Times, it emerges that the Archbishop of Wales has ordered a visitation into Bangor Cathedral after safeguarding concerns, which he describes as serious and requiring urgent attention. The details of the safeguarding concerns are not known,  but a serious incident report has been made to the Charity Commission. Round-up 2 March 2026. 

  • Bangor Cathedral Visitation, (3 May 2025)

 

Links to other posts

Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:

Reordering, extensions and other building works

Exhumation

Bells

Fonts

Churchyards

General/Miscellaneous

[Top]

Updated: 28 December 2025 at 20:06.

[*] This is an approximate classification based upon the  main issues considered by the court. Determinations relating to reordering and building works will often address other aspects of the Petition.

Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.

Cite this article as: David Pocklington, "Ecclesiastical court judgments 2025" in Law & Religion UK, 29 December 2025, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2025/12/29/ecclesiastical-court-judgments-2025/