Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during March 2026
Summaries to the nine consistory court judgments reviewed during March are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included [*]:
This monthly 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.
Re St. Gabriel Toxteth [2026] ECC Liv 1 The Parochial Church Council wished to enter into a lease/hire agreement with the Ethiopian Orthodox Teklehaymanot Church (EOTC), which had already been using the church for worship and community events, with a view to eventual purchase by EOTC at a cost of £175,000. The arrangement formed part of a broader diocesan reorganisation under the “Fit for Mission” initiative, which merged the parishes of St Gabriel’s and St Cleopas due to declining congregations and the higher maintenance costs of St Gabriel’s [5].
Several former members of St Gabriel’s congregation and local residents objected, arguing that the church had not been properly closed under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 and criticising the transparency of the decision-making process. Some expressed concern that the agreement would effectively end Anglican use of the building [6] to [13].
The Chancellor held that these objections related to parish reorganisation and potential closure—matters outside the faculty jurisdiction [16]. His role was limited to considering the effect of the proposed agreement on the church building’s heritage and proper use. As the hire agreement posed no risk to the building’s fabric or heritage and would place the current occupation on a proper legal footing, the faculty was granted. [Re St. Gabriel Toxteth [2026] ECC Liv 1] [top of section] [top]
Reordering, extensions and other building works
[top]
Re St. Thomas Stourbridge [2026] ECC Wor 1 The faculty petition proposed a
major reordering of St Thomas’ Church, Stourbridge, a Grade I listed Georgian church designated as a diocesan “renewal church” supported by national mission funding. The proposals included removal of most 18th-century box pews, installation of new flooring, heating, lighting, audio-visual facilities, a servery, flexible seating, and relocation (not removal) of the font. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that removing the historic pews would cause serious harm to the building’s architectural and historic significance, given their rarity and integral role in the Georgian interior. However, the court accepted clear and convincing justification: the reordering was necessary to achieve liturgical flexibility, accessibility (especially for wheelchair users), and expanded community and missional use essential to the church’s long-term viability. Alternatives involving only partial pew removal would not meet these needs. The public benefits—sustaining an active worshipping community and securing the building’s future—were held to outweigh the heritage harm. Most works were therefore permitted, subject to detailed conditions (including retention of eight pews, preservation of graffiti, reuse of materials, and DAC approval of final specifications). Permission to remove and replace the font was refused, but relocation within the church was allowed. [Re St. Thomas Stourbridge [2026] ECC Wor 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. John Knotty Ash [2025] ECC Liv 3 There was an unopposed faculty petition for reordering works at St. John the Evangelist, Knotty Ash, a Grade II listed church. The proposals—supported by the DAC, PCC, and congregation—aimed to improve accessibility and inclusivity, particularly for children and neurodiverse individuals. Key changes included: creating a sensory space in an existing meeting room; relocating and expanding the children’s area into the north aisle by repositioning (not removing) pews; and installing movable TV screens with live-feed capability to improve visibility and sound access. These responded to identified barriers such as poor audio clarity, limited visibility, and lack of inclusive space. Applying the Duffield framework, the Deputy Chancellor found that the proposals would cause negligible harm to the church’s architectural or historic significance. The works were reversible, did not affect key historic features, and preserved the interior’s character. He concluded that the significant public benefits—enhanced accessibility, participation, and mission—clearly outweighed any minimal impact. As funding was secured and justification strong, the faculty was granted. [Re St. John Knotty Ash [2025] ECC Liv 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Paul Wooburn [2026] ECC Oxf 3 The petitioners sought permission to
remove 31 Victorian nave pews installed during William Butterfield’s 1856–57 restoration, replace them with 150 stackable “Icon 40” chairs, and dispose of various surplus twentieth-century furnishings (including a metal altar rail, kneelers, lectern, and a Lady Altar). The Victorian Society objected in consultation, arguing that the pews formed part of Butterfield’s significant ensemble of furnishings and that their removal would harm the building’s architectural integrity. Historic England and the Diocesan Advisory Committee supported the proposal, considering the pews relatively undistinguished and accepting the parish’s case that flexible seating was needed for worship, mission, accessibility, and community activities. Applying the Duffield guidelines for listed churches, the Chancellor held that removing most pews would cause moderate but not serious harm to the church’s significance. However, the parish had demonstrated a clear and convincing justification: flexible space would better support worship, events, and mission. Alternatives such as shortening or moving pews were rejected as impractical. Balancing harm against public benefit, the Chancellor granted the faculty, subject to conditions regarding disposal of the Lady Altar and consultation about retaining some pews around the church perimeter. [Re St. Paul Wooburn [2026] ECC Oxf 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Thomas Stanhope [2026] ECC Dur 1 The Parochial Church Council sought approval to make the church more flexible, accessible, and suitable for worship, community use, and visitors. Key proposals included removing most pews and replacing them with stackable chairs, installing storage cabinets and improved heating, creating a curved dais with a lift at the east end of the nave, adding an access ramp at the south porch, and altering the positions or use of three fonts[4,5].
Eighteen objections were received, mainly opposing pew removal, font changes, cost, and concerns about altering the church’s character [14]. One objector was resident in London and moved away from Stanhope as long ago as 1964. Isles Ch. was not satisfied that this person is an ‘interested person’ within the meaning of rule 10.1 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (‘the Rules’), but in any event she raises nothing new that is not covered by some of the other objectors.
An objection was from Stanhope Parish Council which alleged that Councillors believed there had been very little consultation on the proposed plans, and in particular the Parish Council had not been consulted. However, the PCC response indicated that this assertion was untrue; the PCC had held a public meeting so that the proposals could be discussed, and some members of the Parish Council were present. Furthermore, the Chancellor noted that under the Rules there is no obligation on the PCC to consult the Parish Council [15].
Heritage bodies largely supported the scheme, noting the pews had relatively low historical significance and that the proposals balanced heritage with contemporary needs.
Applying the legal test for works affecting listed churches, i.e. the familiar principles and questions set out by the Court of Arches in the case of Re St Alkmund, Duffield 2013 Fam 158, and Re St John the Baptist, Penshurst (2015), the Chancellor found that removing the pews would cause only low harm, outweighed by benefits such as flexibility, accessibility, and mission opportunities. Some proposals were modified: the Frosterley marble font must remain in place with its cover, the Crawleyside font must remain inside the church, and the Saxon font may be made movable. [Re St. Thomas Stanhope [2026] ECC Dur 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Newbold Verdon Cemetery [2026] ECC Lei 1 The Chancellor granted a faculty permitting the exhumation of Derek Harold Wilkinson’s cremated remains from Newbold Verdon Cemetery so that they could be reinterred with those of his late wife, Rosemary Wilkinson, in the same grave. Mr Wilkinson was buried in 2019 in his parents’ grave with his wife’s consent.
After Mrs Wilkinson’s death in 2025, their son discovered a 2016 signed letter expressing his parents’ joint wish that their cremated remains be kept until they could be reunited and interred together in the cemetery’s Garden of Remembrance [4]. The court accepted that Mrs Wilkinson’s early dementia at the time of her husband’s burial may explain why those wishes were not followed.
Applying Re Blagdon Cemetery and In re Christ Church, Alsager, Gyane Ch. held that the combination of the couple’s clear prior written wishes, Mrs Wilkinson’s cognitive decline, prompt action upon discovery of the letter, unanimous family support, and the limited disturbance involved constituted exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the presumption of permanence in Christian burial. [Re Newbold Verdon Cemetery [2026] ECC Lei 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Ormskirk Parish Churchyard [2026] ECC Liv 2 Mr and Mrs Newsome petitioned for a faculty permitting the exhumation of their son Adam’s remains, buried in 2007 at Ormskirk Parish Churchyard, and re-interment in West Lancashire Cemetery[9]. Adam died aged 19 after suffering from cancer. The petitioners argued that the churchyard environment had deteriorated. They reported antisocial behaviour, drug paraphernalia, and intimidation from groups of youths, which made visiting the grave distressing and unsafe. They also described maintenance issues, including a sunken and waterlogged grave, and wished ultimately to be buried together with their son in a new family plot elsewhere.
The Chancellor applied the established principles governing exhumation, particularly those in Re Blagdon Cemetery and Re Christchurch Alsager, which emphasise the presumption of permanence of Christian burial and require exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation[12]. Although expressing sympathy for the family, the Chancellor held that distress caused by antisocial behaviour or dissatisfaction with the churchyard environment does not constitute exceptional circumstances.
Granting the petition could create a precedent for similar applications. Accordingly, the petition for exhumation was refused, though the court suggested that improvements to churchyard management might address the concerns raised[16]. [Re Ormskirk Parish Churchyard [2026] ECC Liv 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Malmesbury Abbey [2026] ECC Bri 1 The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the digging of five trial investigation pits within the curtilage of Malmesbury Abbey, to inform improvements to the churchyard, including the proposed erection of a statue to commemorate King Athelstan, who is believed to be buried within the Abbey. [Re Malmesbury Abbey [2026] ECC Bri 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Designation of closed churchyard
Re Tolleshunt Knights Cemetery [2026] ECC Chd 1 The petitioner, the daughter and an executor of her late father, wished to erect a memorial to her father in the churchyard[2]. The memorial had already been manufactured without prior approval and did not fully comply with diocesan churchyard regulations. Although the shape of the memorial was a technical departure from the regulations, the Chancellor regarded this as a minor issue that would not, by itself, have prevented permission being granted.
The principal difficulty arose from an objection by the petitioner’s mother to the inscription, specifically the phrase “A dear husband,” which she contended did not reflect the deceased’s own manner of expression.
The Petitioner indicated that she has taken legal advice, and has been told, incorrectly, that she and her brother have the “right”, as their father’s executors, to decide on the inscription on his gravestone[8]. The Chancellor emphasised that executors have no legal right to determine the design of a memorial in consecrated ground; any memorial requires ecclesiastical permission.
The Chancellor exercised her discretion, noting family disagreement, the absence of malice by the petitioner, the fact that the wording was not intrinsically objectionable, and that the stone had already been made, making replacement wasteful and costly. Balancing these factors, she granted the faculty and allowed the memorial to be installed. [Re Tolleshunt Knights Cemetery [2026] ECC Chd 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
See Re St. Thomas Stourbridge.
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice) An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in St Peters Churchyard, Clayworth, Retford, Nottinghamshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
CDM Decisions
Re: the Most Revd & Right Hon Sarah Mullally, Archbishop of Canterbury (February 2026) Review Decision pursuant to section 13(3); President’s Decision on Publication (March 2026).
Church in Wales
Details of any decisions or sentences of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Church in Wales, where the President of the Tribunal has ordered that details be published on the Church in Wales website.
- Anthony Pierce – February 2026. Decision (3pp, and reported here).
- Samuel Erlandson – February 2026. Decision (3pp).
- Andrew Robinson – February 2026. Decision (3pp).
- Ryan Forey – August 2025. Decision (12 pp, reported here).
- Jason Kennett-Orpwood – October 2024. Details of Penalty (2 paras in E, W).
- Nigel Cahill – August/October 2021. Details of Penalty (2 paras in E, W).
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.
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 7 May 2026.
The last published minutes are for Thursday 22 October 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
General/Miscellaneous
- Law Commission report on reform of burial and cremation law, (20 March 2026).
- Regulating the funerals industry?, (11 March 2026).
- “Defrocking” in the Church of England, (9 March 2026).
- Deposition of a Bishop from Holy Orders, (2 March 2026).
[Top]
Updated: 31 March 2026 at 08:49.
[*] 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.
Re Tolleshunt Knights Cemetery [2026] ECC Chd 1, this is the second time (to my knowledge) that this cemetery – formerly the burial ground of the parish church of St John the Baptist Church, Tolleshunt Knights (a church now in the care of the Greek Orthodox Church, with the parish formally merged in 1961 with that of All Saints, Tiptree) – has been involved’ in quasi-litigation.
In 1993, and following a two-day public inquiry, a planning inspector allowed an appeal by the First Tiptree Scout Group against the decision of Maldon District Council to refuse planning permission for the erection of a pre-fabricated scout hut on the site of the former Church Hall, adjacent to the cemetery: ref. T/APP/X1545/A/92/216011/P7. As the inspector’s decision (dated 28 June 1993) records at para 2, the boundary of the appeal site had been amended “in order to exclude all consecrated ground”, so that no faculty approval was required, but one of the main objections to the proposal (there were 62 letters of objection and 9 in support of the appeal) concerned noise and disturbance from scouting activities, disturbing the “peace and tranquillity of the neighbouring cemetery”, “if only, because, as the Council’s advocate put it, boys will be boys”: Decision Letter, para 14. However, this was not to be a new use, as the scouts had been using the former church hall, now in a poor state of repair, since 1980, which the council conceded would entitle them to a certificate of lawful development. On balance, the inspector concluded that the identified benefits outweighed the objections, and conditional planning permission was granted.
[Finally, I need to declare an interest, as I represented the successful appellant.]