The eight consistory court judgments circulated in December 2025 included:
This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; Visitations; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
[top]
Re St. Bridget with St. Thomas Wavertree [2025] ECC Liv 2 The petition proposed significant internal reordering of the Grade II* listed church in Liverpool city: extending the kitchen; creating a breakout room; improving disabled access; and refurbishing the entrance and toilets to enable wider community use. Heritage bodies — Historic England, the Victorian Society, and the Church Buildings Council — supported the project in principle but raised concerns about enclosing the church’s distinctive Italianate columns, removing internal doors, and relocating the historic font.
Wood Ch. commented:
“[4]. There are no parties opponent, and no formal objectors, but the nature of some of the criticisms raised by the heritage bodies require a careful consideration of this petition under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018 and the application of the appropriate criteria to ensure heritage protection”.
Applying the Duffield framework [26], 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. A faculty was granted, subject to conditions: retention of the timber doors, careful relocation of the font under expert supervision, DAC approval of methods, confirmation of adequate funding before commencement, and completion within 12 months. 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 including: underfloor heating; a new stone floor; kitchen and lavatory facilities; removal of most pews; new screens and storage; roof insulation; lighting upgrades; external plant and storage buildings; lowering of the pulpit; relocation of the font and ledger stones and replacement of the organ [2].
Amenity bodies raised significant objections, particularly about underfloor heating, relocation of historic features, removal of seating, the scale and impact of external building, and potential harm to the church’s historic and rural character. The PCC revised aspects of the scheme and demonstrated strong community support and anticipated demand, especially in light of local housing growth. The DAC supported the proposals and commended the PCC’s consultation process.
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 [16]. [Re St. Leonard Broad Blunsdon [2025] ECC Bri 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Other building works, including re-roofing
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 first set of pews nearest the organ restricted access to the vestry door. The tight space deterred parishioners from sitting there and the pews had been utilised for storage of various items.
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; the benefit of the proposed change in respect of the provision of the cupboards outweighed the potential harm to the historical and architectural significance of the church. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Marshfield [2025] ECC Bri 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 10 This 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 mother, then 19 and in deep distress, stated that she was never told the grave was consecrated or informed of the implications. She now suffered long-standing grief and psychological distress aggravated by the separation from her son’s resting place. She sought exhumation so that his remains could be cremated and kept with her at home.
The Chancellor held that Christian burial in consecrated ground is normally permanent, but exceptional circumstances justified a faculty. The key “special factor” was an operative mistake: the mother’s lack of informed understanding that her child was being buried in consecrated ground. Additional factors included the tragic circumstances of Robbie’s life and death, the mother’s extreme youth and unsupported grief, the continuing impact on her mental health, and the full support of Robbie’s father and brother.
The court accepted her intentions for the ashes, despite their divergence from traditional Anglican practice. A faculty was granted subject to conditions concerning the exhumation and cremation, and informing close relatives, as appropriate; the removal and safekeeping of any memorial stone; and the renouncement of rights to the grave space to Kidlington Parish Council, so that it may become available for re-use; and the treatment of the remains :i.e. they will be retained within a suitable durable container in the possession of the petitioner until her death or further directions of this court (for which purpose there will be general permission to any close relative of Robbie to apply by letter to the Registry). After the death of the petitioner, the container is to be interred with the human or cremated remains of the petitioner, and in accordance with her expressed wishes. [Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 10] [Top of section] [Top of post].
- Designation of closed churchyard
- Churchyard Regulations
- Reservation of grave space
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Owen Bromham [2025] ECC StA 2 By a petition dated 8 May 2025, the churchwardens and incumbent sought a faculty to remove “Decoration” – brick edging and loose stones – next to a grave [2]. Mr Watt, the deceased’s father, opposed the petition, stating that the Decorations had remained since 2022 and numerous other graves similarly contravened the Regulations. De Mestre Ch. held that introducing the Decorations was a trespass (as Mr Watt acknowledged authorization was required), and their removal required a faculty (Re St Mary the Virgin, Burghfield). The Consistory Court should bear in mind the impact of a decision on all relevant parties (Re The Churchyard of Quarrington Hill). 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 [35]. [Re St. Owen Bromham [2025] ECC StA 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Peter & St. Paul Reepham [2025] ECC Lin 5 The Petitioner sought a Faculty for a memorial stone to be placed at his late wife’s grave which conforms with the Churchyard Regulations save that he wishes the stone to be polished black granite with incised gold leaf lettering [1] “because this is the same as the memorial stone for his father in a churchyard in Bristol” [3]. He also wishes this application to be treated as a joint application both for his late wife’s memorial, as well as for his memorial for his adjacent grave when the time comes. Bishop Ch. stated that there was only one application before him at present, “but it will be helpful for the Petitioner to know what the approach of the court is to applications for polished black granite and gold lettering” [4].
The DAC have advised that it did do not object to the proposal subject to the new headstone conforming with the Churchyard Regulations, a detail mentioned in the Petitioner’s letter to the Chancellor [6].
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 [7].” [Re St. Peter & St. Paul Reepham [2025] ECC Lin 5] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Catcliffe 5 [2025] ECC She 5 The petitioners wished to install in the churchyard of St. Mary Catcliffe a memorial to the late Davina Knight, who died suddenly in January 2021, aged forty-three, in “dramatic and shocking circumstances” [1]. The petitioners were the deceased’s surviving relatives. The proposed memorial was to be of black granite, incorporating corner kerbs and a book-shaped plinth, none of which is consonant with the Diocese of Sheffield Churchyard Rules [2]. The Diocese of Sheffield Churchyard Rules state
“all memorials should be made of natural stone’ and do not permit the use of black granite, though it may be authorised where it is ‘already common in the part of the churchyard in which the proposed memorial is to be placed”. Figure sculpture and other statuary can only be authorised by faculty. Kerbstones “are not normally allowed” but “may exceptionally be permitted…where kerbstones are already common in that area and the introduction of the proposed kerbstones would have no adverse effect on the maintenance of the churchyard” (Diocese of Sheffield Churchyard Rules 2024, paragraphs 10 & 11) [3].
In accompanying letter, the petitioners expressed the distress they had felt at initially being refused permission for the memorial [4]. The Deputy Chancellor pointed out that incumbents lack the authority to permit memorials which do not comply with the Rules. In framing a judgment, she stressed that the introduction of new memorials should not fundamentally change the character or appearance of a churchyard. She conceded, however, that the proposed memorial was not over-sized; its inscription was neither inappropriate nor inconsistent with the Christian faith. Moreover, it would not impact on the appearance of this particular churchyard, nor be out of keeping with other black granite memorials already present there. Nor would it impede churchyard maintenance. A faculty therefore issued permitting the installation of the memorial as proposed [7]. [Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2025] ECC She 5] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Catcliffe 6 [2025] ECC She 6 A private petition proposed the installation in the churchyard of a memorial to the late Declan and the late Peter Knight in the churchyard. Declan died in 1999, aged four and Peter died in 2019 aged sixty-seven. The petitioners were their surviving relatives [1].
The proposed memorial was in black granite and incorporated kerbstones and coloured images (of a blue teddy and a yellow train), none of which is consonant with the Diocese of Sheffield Churchyard Rules. The Rules do, however, permit the exceptional authorisation of both black granite and kerbstones, where these are already common and would not impede churchyard maintenance. Their presence in this case was conceded by the Deputy Chancellor [6].
The presence of coloured images on the headstone was more problematic, however, judged to be inappropriate in a space of quiet reflection [7]. However, the Deputy Chancellor was minded that the family wished to have, albeit that images are generally discouraged, provided that they are in the same colour as the lettering, rather than blue and yellow.
A faculty was therefore issued, permitting their inclusion, provided that they were in the same (gold) colour as the inscription [7]. [Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2025] ECC She 6] [Top of section] [Top of post].
- 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
Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty are published by the Church of England; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed. The majority of complaints that are made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal.
CDM Decisions
- 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, 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).
Penalties by consent
A new policy came into force on 24 October 2022 although there is a potential lacuna for cases where the penalty was imposed after the change in the Code of Practice, paragraph 312, but before this date, as with The Right Reverend Peter Hullah. The page on the CofE website Penalties by Consent records the penalties that have been imposed by a bishop or archbishop with the consent of the respondent under section 16 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and penalties that have been imposed under section 30 or 31.
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 determinations for 2025 are:
- Thursday 27 March 2025
- Thursday 15 May 2025
- Thursday 10 July 2025
- Thursday 4 September 2025
- Thursday 22 October 2025
- Thursday 11 December 2025
The programme for 2026 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 5 February 2026.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
General/Miscellaneous
- Most-read posts: 2025, (22 December 2025).
- Religion and judicial review of the RAISE programme to reduce educational disadvantage in Northern Ireland: JR338 & Ors, (14 December).
- Ecclesiastical office, whistleblowing and perceived disability, Green v Lichfield DBF, (13 December 2025).
- Church Statement: C4 documentary on John Smyth, (12 December 2025).
- Statement: Chapter of Bangor Cathedral, (8 December 2025).
- Inter-state recognition of same-sex marriage in EU law: Wojewoda Mazowiecki, (1 December 2025).
[Top]
Updated: 27 December 2025 at 13:28.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.