Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during July 2026
Summaries to the seven consistory court judgments reviewed during July 2026 are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. Six of these have been covered by stand-alone posts (marked “§“), and the reviews below use those of the Ecclesiastical Law Association.
The topics covered in this post include [*]:
- Procedural
- Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Church Treasures/ Sale of Paintings/ Loans/ Memorials
- Audio Visual Equipment
- Exhumation
- Churchyards and burials
This monthly review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other L&RUK posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
An index to these and earlier judgments in here.
Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon (Number 2) [2026] ECC B&W 2] §. The Consistory Court reconsidered its earlier faculty decision in Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon [2025] ECC B&W 1 after discovering that through an administrative error, the court was not aware that Historic England had wished to be a party opponent.
To remedy the procedural unfairness, the Court joined Historic England, considered its expert evidence on the significance of the Victorian chancel stalls, and revisited the merits. Historic England demonstrated that the children’s choir stalls were an exceptionally rare, possibly unique, survival of Victorian church furnishing and that their removal would cause moderate harm to the significance of the Grade I listed church.
However, the Court concluded that the stalls are functionally redundant and that the parish’s need to create a smaller, more practical, energy-efficient worship space close to the altar outweighed that harm. It rejected Historic England’s proposed compromise as insufficient to meet the church’s present needs. Accordingly, the application to vary the existing faculty was dismissed, leaving the original faculty in force, including the condition preventing disposal of the removed stalls without further court approval. [Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon (Number 2) [2026] ECC B&W 2] [Post] [top]
Reordering, extensions and other building works 
Reordering and alternative uses
Re Holy Cross Binsted [2026] ECC Win 1 The judgment concerns a faculty petition for alterations to the Grade I listed Church of the Holy Cross, Binsted, to improve accessibility, facilities and community use. The proposals included a new lavatory extension, servery, flexible seating through partial pew removal, underfloor heating, stone flooring, storage, audio-visual equipment, drainage works, and relocation of the font[4].
The court accepted that the church had demonstrated a long-standing and compelling need for these improvements, particularly to provide accessible toilets, catering facilities, disabled access and adaptable space for worship and community activities. However, the Amenity 7(b), 7(d), 7(e), (12) commented on the lack of detail in the petition.
Applying the ‘Duffield’ test, the Chancellor found that some elements—particularly the loss of a small section of medieval fabric (“the area of ancient wall is a little more than 1m x 1m. It is in part of the church both inside and outside which is less visible, due to being at the back of a side aisle and dwarfed by the tower outside[12]), partial removal of Victorian pews, and repositioning of the font—would cause limited harm to the church’s significance[10]. However, that harm was outweighed by the substantial public benefits of improved mission, accessibility and long-term viability.
Ruffell Ch. therefore granted a faculty, including permission for chairs omitted from the original petition, subject to conditions requiring further approval of archaeological measures, drainage, chair design, font detailing, servery design, flooring, and the mechanism for movable pews before relevant works commence, [13], [14]. [Re Holy Cross Binsted [2026] ECC Win 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. Mary-le-Moor Cadmore End [2026] ECC Oxf 12§ The Chancellor
considered an unopposed retrospective faculty application for the alteration of two original pews and their installation in the church porch. Although the removal of the pews caused no harm to the significance of the Grade II listed church and created a useful community space, they had been shortened and moved to the church porch without faculty permission, despite repeated advice that prior approval was required. The parish also failed to disclose that the works had already been completed until this was discovered by the Diocesan Advisory Committee. Applying the ‘Duffield’ principles, the Chancellor held that the pews were of limited significance, the alterations were justified, and a faculty would have been granted had permission been sought in advance. However, the deliberate disregard of the faculty jurisdiction justified a response. Following recent authorities, he made an ‘excluded matters order’ under S.78(3) Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, requiring the parish to obtain a faculty for all List B matters for two years. The retrospective faculty was nevertheless granted, but the judgment emphasised that abuse of the faculty system would not be tolerated. [Re St. Mary-le-Moor Cadmore End [2026] ECC Oxf 12] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Lavender Hill Cemetery Enfield§ The Chancellor of the Diocese of London refused two petitions by AA to exhume the remains of her parents, HS and RS, from consecrated ground at Lavender Hill Cemetery and reinter them in her paternal grandfather’s grave in South Wales. The Chancellor reaffirmed the principle in Re Blagdon Cemetery that burial in consecrated ground is intended to be permanent and that exhumation is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Relevant considerations include mistake, family reunification, delay, and evidence supporting the application. AA argued that she had promised her father he would be buried in Wales, but her mother’s memory loss led to his burial in Enfield. She later buried her mother in the same plot, explaining that financial constraints prevented reburial in Wales. The court held that the family had consciously chosen the original burials, had not sought to change them during RS’s lifetime, and had waited 30 years (HS) and 12 years (RS) before applying. Although sympathetic to AA’s motives, the Chancellor found no exceptional circumstances sufficient to displace the presumption of permanence. Both petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs. [Re Lavender Hill Cemetery Enfield [2026] ECC Lon 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Margaret Halstead [2026] ECC Roc 1§ Mrs. Margaret Galletly died in 2013, was buried in the churchyard, and a memorial stone was erected over her grave. The memorial was replaced in 2021, because the porous stone had not aged well. A ceramic photograph had been placed on the memorial without lawful permission. Squadron Leader Galletly died in 2024, and his daughter now sought permission for a new and larger headstone with two ceramic photographs. The Chancellor stated that photographs have historically been prohibited across the Church of England and remain outside the scope of the new model regulations. Although one unauthorised photograph had been on the memorial for several years and both the incumbent and the Diocesan Advisory Committee supported retaining it on pastoral grounds, the Chancellor held that allowing photographs would undermine consistent application of the regulations and create future pastoral difficulties. The faculty was therefore granted for the replacement memorial only on condition that no photographs be displayed on it. [Re St. Margaret Halstead [2026] ECC Roc 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Peter Wrecclesham [2026] ECC Gui 1§ The Consistory Court of the Diocese of Guildford granted Mrs Janet Clarke a faculty reserving a grave space at St Peter, Wrecclesham for 30 years after discovering that the original refusal was based on incorrect information. Mrs Clarke, a parish resident for nearly 40 years, had applied for a reserved grave space with the PCC’s support. The court initially proposed refusing the petition because it had been told only eight grave spaces remained, making reservation unjustified. However, subsequent investigation revealed that approximately 96 spaces were actually available, meaning the churchyard would not be full for over 30 years. The judgment also criticises the handling of the application. Mrs Clarke’s request was approved by the PCC, she paid the fee and was given plot markers, creating the reasonable impression that the reservation was complete, yet the petition was not lodged with the Consistory Court for almost four years. The court described this history as causing significant distress, waived any contribution to churchyard maintenance, and recorded the Church’s “unreserved and sincere apology” to Mrs Clarke. [Re St. Peter Wrecclesham [2026] ECC Gui 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of page].
Re St. Peter Wrecclesham [2026] ECC Gui 2§ The Consistory Court of the Diocese of Guildford granted Jeffrey and Kathleen West a faculty reserving a double-depth grave space at St Peter, Wrecclesham, for 30 years. The petition had initially been provisionally refused because the court had been told that only eight grave spaces remained, making reservations inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances existed. However, further investigation revealed that the churchyard actually contained up to 96 available grave spaces, meaning it was unlikely to be full for over 30 years. The judgment also criticised the handling of the petition. Although the PCC had unanimously supported the request in 2023, the petition was not lodged with the Registry until 2025, for unexplained reasons. The petitioners were led to believe their reservation had already been approved, causing significant distress when the court later issued its provisional refusal based on incorrect information. In light of the revised evidence, the Deputy Chancellor granted the faculty, waived any contribution to the churchyard maintenance fund, and issued an unreserved apology on behalf of the Church for the delay, misinformation, and distress caused. [Re St. Peter Wrecclesham [2026] ECC Gui 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of page].
8 July 2026
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in:
- St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Denby Village, Ripley, Derbyshire; and
- St John’s Church Churchyard, Throapham, Sheffield, South Yorkshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Name: The Revd JAMIE ALEXANDER FRANKLYN TAYLOR
Diocese: Oxford
Date imposed: 26 June 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Grounds of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Rebuke and Injunctions
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 3 September 2026.
There has been a continuing delay, year-on-year, in reporting the outcome of CFCE meetings. As we noted in 2023, we have adopted the policy of posting only the links to the latest reported CFCE meeting; at the time of writing this was for the meeting on Thursday 22 October 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Procedure
- Archdeacon uncovers errors at St Peter, Wrecclesham, (17 July 2026).
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- “Net zero”, church heating, and the consistory courts – VI, (13 July 2026).
Exhumation
- Permanence of burial: Re Lavender Hill Cemetery, (23 July 2026).
Churchyards
- Newbury Racecourse revisited – lessons learned?, (2 July 2026).
General/Miscellaneous
- Church of England: Revised “Net Zero ” Routemap, (10 July 2026).
- Two “net zero” updates, (7 July 2026).
- CDM Tribunal, WhatsApp and Snapchat evidence, (2 July 2026).
[Top]
Updated: 30 July 2026 at 13:05.
[*] 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.