Review of the ecclesiastical court and other determinations judgments during September 2026
Summaries to the seven consistory court judgments reviewed during September are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included [*]:
This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding;CFCE Determinations; and Links to other L&RUK posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
An index to these and earlier judgments in here.
Note that this autumn will see the introduction of the new national Buildings Management Portal (BMP), which will replace the existing Online Faculty System (OFS). The Portal is a Church of England national project and will be used by dioceses across the country. Whilst the Church Buildings Team will be helping parishes navigate the transition locally, the system itself is being delivered and managed nationally rather than by the Diocese. The new Portal is due to launch on the 6th October 2026.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. Mary Garsington [2026] ECC Oxf 13 The PCC of St. Mary Garsington, a
Grade II* medieval church, sought a faculty to dispose of eight Victorian pews already removed from the nave, and to replace 97 existing chairs which had been introduced without faculty approval. The background to changes to the church seating is at [5] to [6]: the Statement of Need explains that since 2011, the PCC has been continuing to develop a vision for the reordering of the interior of the church, in the light of their role as stewards of this ancient building and its mission to the community[12]; the PCC wished to retain the pews in the front section of the nave both to preserve the traditional view from the main crossing in the nave, and also because the parish know that these are valued for the occasional offices, particularly weddings[15].
Of the consultees, only the Church Buildings Council (CBC) made substantive comments: it did not oppose the proposed disposal of eight pews but requested that careful consideration was given to which of the 22 pews selected for retention. Careful assessment of these should be made to avoid the loss of commemorative plaques or other historic details are not inadvertently[18].
On the issue of upholstered chairs, [20], “[p]aragraph 25 of the petition refers to a letter from the PCC which makes clear the PCC’s ‘very strong preference’ for chairs with upholstered seats”. It was said to be extremely disappointing that the DAC had ‘instructed’ that the replacement chairs should be unupholstered. This decision by the Church of England was said to be perceived as ‘totally baffling’ to the PCC, to the congregation, and to most supporters and visitors[20].
The Chancellor noted the observation of the Court of Arches in Re St Luke the Evangelist, Maidstone [1995] Fam 1, “… that a church is a house of God and a place for worship. It does not belong to conservationists, to the state or to the congregation but to God” [30].
The familiar arguments on the CBC guidance were again rehearsed, and Hodge Ch. noted: “[t]he fact that such guidance has not been revisited in almost a decade bears testament to its robustness”[39]. He concluded that, unlike an earlier case, Re St. Leonard Grendon Underwood [2026] ECC Oxf 4, the proposed Alpha chair had a wooden back, limited upholstery and an appearance considered compatible with the church. The PCC had also demonstrated practical, financial and community-use reasons for preferring it. These circumstances justified departing from the CBC guidance[38].
The Chancellor approved removal of the eight pews, finding their individual significance modest. He was satisfied that retaining 14 pews would preserve a representative Victorian seating arrangement and the church’s historic character. The faculty was therefore granted, permitting cranberry-coloured upholstery, subject to removal of the unauthorised existing chairs and retention of 14 pews. [Re St. Mary Garsington [2026] ECC Oxf 13] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Tetford [2026] ECC Lin 2 There was a petition to exhume the remains of Barbara Eugeane Myers, who in February 2024 had been mistakenly buried in the grave of a Mr Freiston, instead of in the grave of her husband. The error arose because the churchyard plan was unclear and did not identify the relevant graves by name. The mistake was discovered when Mr Freiston’s family sought to inter his widow’s cremated remains.
The Court applied the presumption, established in Re Blagdon Cemetery, that burial in consecrated ground is permanent, but recognised that special circumstances can justify exhumation. A simple administrative mistake resulting in burial in the wrong grave was expressly identified as such a circumstance. The Court also noted that Mrs Myers’ reinterment in her husband’s grave would promote family unity. A Faculty was therefore granted, requiring that the exhumation must be discreet, with appropriate screening, environmental-health notification, and same-day reinterment, and that the Parochial Church Council must bear the costs. The Chancellor also criticised the inadequate churchyard plan and required an accessible, accurate replacement in the church. [Re St. Mary Tetford [2026] ECC Lin 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Retford Cemetery [2026] ECC S&N 2 Avril Monica Rumney sought permission to exhume her sister, Jean Elaine Haxby, buried in consecrated ground at Retford Cemetery in 2014[1]. Mrs Rumney, now living in Canada and unable to travel due to age, was concerned that the grave would no longer be maintained[3]. She proposed cremating the exhumed remains and reburying the ashes in a Toronto cemetery alongside other family members.
However, the coffin in which she was buried was made of chipboard and it is expected that “the course of nature will have acted on both the body and the coffin”[4]. The requisite consents from the authorities in Retford and those in Toronto are in place, “although such consents are usually necessary, consent to, or desire for, exhumation is not sufficient of itself”[5].
The Chancellor explained that Christian burial is presumed to be permanent, creating a presumption against exhumation. Difficulties visiting or maintaining a grave, including relatives ageing or living far away do not ordinarily justify exhumation[6]. The passage of twelve years since burial and the practical difficulties of respectfully recovering and cremating the remains also weighed against the petition[7]. The only factor supporting exhumation was the wish for Jean’s remains to be buried with other family members[8]. The Chancellor held this insufficient in the present case to overcome the presumption of permanence, and concluded:
“[10].Her body must remain where it is. The grave itself will no doubt be maintained to an appropriate state by the cemetery authorities, and Mrs Rumney will know that her sister’s soul is in the hands of God wherever her earthly remains are buried”.
The petition was therefore refused[11].
[Re Retford Cemetery [2026] ECC S&N 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
[Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary West Horsley [2026] ECC Gui 3 There was a petition to reuse
existing grave spaces for new burials. The parish proposed excluding graves less than 75 years old and graves with memorial stones; any human remains discovered would be reinterred in a deeper grave. The proposal was extensively consulted upon and received no objections. The churchyard, dating back centuries, had exhausted its later burial extensions and had no further available land. The Diocesan Advisory Committee’s Archaeological Advisor raised no concerns about graves 75–99 years old but recommended careful excavation, reinterment, recording and archaeological oversight, particularly for older graves. The Deputy Chancellor held that reusing grave spaces after a satisfactory period is legally permissible and consistent with Christian doctrine, provided remains are reverently reinterred. There is no statutory minimum period, although at least 50 years is generally appropriate, subject to pastoral considerations. A faculty was granted, subject to proper treatment and recording of human remains and archaeological artefacts, and compliance with the DAC Archaeologist’s recommendations. [Re St. Mary West Horsley [2026] ECC Gui 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Laurence Ansley [2026] ECC Cov 2 The petitioner sought to replace the existing memorial base with a larger splayed/wedge-shaped granite base, add a flower holder, and inscribe the names of Raymond Owen Buckler (d. 2022) and Edna May Buckler (d. 2023), whose cremated remains had been interred in the family grave. The Chancellor noted that photographs showed similar granite memorials and a substantially larger wedge-shaped base nearby. He therefore granted a faculty, permitting the replacement base, inscription and flower holder. However, he rejected the proposed black lettering, finding that it would clash with the uncoloured inscription on the existing headstone and surrounding memorials. He made it a condition of the faculty that the new lettering must instead be uncoloured or white. [Re St Laurence Ansley [2024] ECC Cov 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Whitchurch [2026] ECC Cov 3 A faculty was granted for repairs to the Grade II* listed Church of St Mary, Whitchurch, including chancel stonework, guttering and stained glass, together with specified tree works and replacement of a removed grave-marker. The main issue concerned the proposed removal of a Mediterranean Cypress tree. Although objectors argued that the tree was healthy, suitable and connected with a memorial, there was no evidence of a PCC vote approving the planting of the tree or prior professional arboricultural advice or the requisite ecclesiastical permission. Professional advice from a structural engineer and the Diocesan Advisory Committee’s Ecological Adviser indicated that the tree’s location posed potential risks as the tree grew to the church, graves and views of the church. The Chancellor therefore authorised the tree’s removal.
The reference to a non-native species clearly refers to the Church Building Council’s Guidance on planting, felling, lopping, and topping of trees.
[Re St. Mary Whitchurch [2026] ECC Cov 3] [Top of section] [Top of page].
Re St. Mary Radcliffe-on-Trent [2026] ECC S&N 1 The Petition sought authority to purchase and store a portable font for baptism by immersion. It was said that this would meet a need because of the desire of adult converts to be baptised in this way. The church has a traditional font. The Chancellor ruled as follows. (1) The doctrine and practice of the Church from ancient times and today is that aspersion or affusion is effective for baptism; immersion is therefore never needed where the one of the other modes is available. If there is a need, it may be for clearer teaching. The doctrine and practice of the Church is not determined by those about to join it. (2) For that reason, and in accordance with the Guidance of the House of Bishops, there should not be a second means of baptism in a church, as that might encourage thoughts of a variety of effect of baptism. The receipt of grace is not a subject of consumer choice as to its means. (3) In any event, the use of up to 940 litres of water for a baptism, rather than an insignificant amount, is unjustified waste not conforming to Christian duties of stewardship of resources. Faculty refused. [Re St. Mary Radcliffe-on-Trent [2026] ECC S&N 1] [Post] [Top].
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty are published by the Church of England; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed. The majority of complaints that are made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal.
CDM Decision
On 21 September the Church of England issued the Press Release Bishop of Lincoln resigns which stated “The Rt Rev Stephen Conway has resigned as Bishop of Lincoln. The See will become vacant on October 1…The complaint process is ongoing. Clergy remain subject to church disciplinary procedures following resignation or retirement”.
Penalties by consent
Name: The Revd MICHAEL FRANCIS CHATFIELD
Diocese: Province of Canterbury (Armed Forces Chaplain)
Date imposed: 7th September 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: Section 8(1)(d), conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Removal from office, Injunction & Prohibition for 18 Months
Safeguarding
Tudor Safeguarding Practice Review – Update On 8 September 2026, the Church of England issued the Press Release Update on Tudor Safeguarding Practice Review (10 September 2026).
The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission. The programme for 2026 is here, ; the last determinations was on Thursday 3 September 2026.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Exhumation
- “An object lesson for all parishes…”, so held Bishop Ch. in the recent determination of the Lincoln Consistory Court, Re St. Mary Tetford [2026] ECC Lin 2, in relation to “a simple error in administration” of burial plots.(29 September 2026).
Fonts
- The significance of fonts, In Re St. Mary Radcliffe-on-Trent [2026] ECC S&N 1, the Petitioners sought authority to purchase (and store) a portable font for baptism by immersion in addition to the existing “traditional font”. (23 September 2026).
[Top]
Updated: 29 September 2026 at 16:51.
[*] 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.