Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during February 2026
Summaries to the four consistory court judgments reviewed during February 2026 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.
Reordering, extensions and other building works 
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. Nicholas Bradfield [2026] ECC She 1 The Petitioners from St Nicholas, High Bradfield, a Grade I listed medieval church, sought permission to install a new kitchen, servery, accessible toilets, and a shallow access ramp on the north side of the building [1,2]. The works, planned over several years, aimed to replace inadequate and outdated facilities. The current kitchen was cramped and unsuitable, and the church had no internal lavatory; the only permanent toilet was down a steep and slippery cobbled lane and not owned by the church. A temporary Portaloo was in place, but was inappropriate for regular use, especially for elderly or those with disabilities. These shortcomings hindered worship, mission, and community events, including the well-attended annual music festival [5] to [6].
Consultation with amenity societies raised no objections [8]. The Church Buildings Council supported the scheme but insisted on replacing proposed Karndene flooring with engineered oak, a change the petitioners accepted [9]. Planning permission and building regulations approval have been granted, and public notices produced no objections. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that any harm to the church’s significance was minimal, the need compelling, and the benefits substantial. A faculty was therefore granted, subject to a proviso in respect of the flooring. [Re St. Nicholas Bradfield [2026] ECC She 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Kenelm Minster Lovell [2026] ECC Oxf 2 The Chancellor considered a faculty petition for internal works at the Grade I listed church of St Kenelm, Minster Lovell. In the absence of an incumbent, the petition was brought by the two churchwardens, Brenda Bennett and Judith Warwick (who also serve as the PCC Treasurer and Secretary respectively) and a third member of the PCC, the Rt Hon Jack Straw. [2]. The proposals included: re-ordering the north transept to create a WC, servery and heritage/interpretation space; removing and adapting some mid-19th-century pews; installing a ramped accessible route (with possible removable handrails); relocating the war memorial; and creating a new accessible external path to the south door [2,3]. The church is described in [4] and [5], with photographs on pp 26 to 36 of the judgment.
The DAC consulted Historic England [10] who did not wish to offer any comments on the proposals and Historic Buildings & Places (HBP), (the working name of the Ancient Monuments Society) [11], the Church Buildings Council (the CBC) [12], and The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) [16]. Although the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) objected—mainly to pew removal, handrails in the crossing, and the handling of damp—the DAC ultimately did not object, subject to extensive conditions.
Applying the Duffield test for listed churches, the Chancellor accepted that there would be some harm to the church’s significance, particularly from the loss and relocation of pews and visual intrusion, but found it limited and justified. The public benefits – improved accessibility, welcome, facilities for visitors and worshippers, heritage interpretation, and the long-term viability and mission of the church – were clear and convincing and outweighed the harm. [42] to [45].
Being satisfied that some, albeit modest, degree of harm would be caused by the parish’s proposals for the reordering of the north transept [53], the Chancellor considered the fourth of the Duffield questions, and was “entirely satisfied that the
petitioners [had] established a clear and convincing need, and justification, for these proposals if St Kenelm is to improve its connection with, and fulfil its evangelical potential as a place of welcome, and education, for the very many visitors to the neighbouring Minster Lovell Hall who do not currently choose to enter the church, and thereby provide the financial support required to continue the thousand-year Christian presence in Minster Lovell [54].
A faculty was therefore granted, with detailed conditions to control design, conservation, drainage, ventilation, archaeology, and (if needed) handrails [54]. [Re St. Kenelm Minster Lovell [2026] ECC Oxf 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. John the Baptist Tideswell [2025] ECC Der 2 The petitioners wished to replace the gas boilers at the Grade I listed church with new gas boilers. The existing gas boilers had been damaged by flooding. An initial request for like-for-like replacement was delayed because it failed to demonstrate “due regard” to the Church of England’s Net Zero Carbon guidance, which is mandatory under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. After criticism from the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), the petitioners produced a detailed revised options appraisal assessing a wide range of low-carbon heating solutions. The appraisal concluded that a fully electric system was currently impractical due to inadequate electricity supply and cost, but proposed a phased approach: short-term replacement of gas boilers, followed by medium-term integration of air source heat pumps, and longer-term carbon offsetting. The Chancellor held that the petitioners had now properly engaged with the Net Zero guidance and that immediate heating was necessary for the church’s mission and community use. A faculty was therefore granted, but only on strict conditions: the new gas boilers must be hydrogen-ready, supplied on a green tariff, subject to carbon offsetting, and approved for a limited period of five years to 2030, during which progress towards low-carbon alternatives must be demonstrated. [Re St. John the Baptist Tideswell [2025] ECC Der 2] [Top of post]
Re St. Peter Aubourn [2026] ECC Lin 1 The petitioner sought to have the cremated remains of her husband exhumed and reinterred elsewhere in the churchyard, as the area where the remains were interred had become waterlogged and made access difficult. The cremated remains were interred in September 2023. The problem that had arisen was that the area where cremated remains are interred became heavily waterlogged over a lengthy period making it difficult to attend this grave. Bishop Ch. had given judgement for a Faculty in another exhumation application in the same cremated remains area for the same reason, Re St. Peter Aubourn [2024] ECC Lin 1.
It was proposed that the interred remains, which were in a cardboard container, would be exhumed and reinterred in a new cremated remains plot in the churchyard at a higher elevation. It is near the footpath which will also make it easier to visit the graves. The undertaker also states that removal of the ashes is possible [2].
The Chancellor commented:
“[9]. This is a case in which it was plainly a mistake to have cremated remains interred in a place that was to become so waterlogged so soon after the interment when immediate family members are likely to want to visit, and who are now prevented from visiting.
[…]
[12]. The new grave will require a new flat memorial set flush with the ground to the prescribed dimensions in conformity with the Churchyard Regulations. All new interments in the new cremated remains area will have the same style of memorial. This is so that the churchyard can be easily maintained and also contributes to a sense of harmony in the churchyard. I note that the Petitioner’s expectation from her application is that the existing memorial will simply be lifted and reinstalled in the new position.
If it is not flat and is not flush with the ground and to the same size as other memorials in that cremated remains area, then I am minded to direct that it will have to be replaced by a new memorial.
[13]. … if having spoken to the Rural Dean or the Vice Chair, the Petitioner remains concerned about this I will of course hear any further representation she may want to make to me about this. I would also in those circumstances be assisted by having the views of the Rural Dean and some more photographs of the new cremated remains area. I will then rule on that issue
definitively.
[14]. However, subject to that the Faculty for the exhumation and reinterment is granted.
[Re St. Peter Aubourn [2026] ECC Lin 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
The PCC of St Paul’s Church: environmental permit application advertisement – EPR/RP3122LW/A001: Application No EPR/RP3122LW/A001 for Trench Arch Drainage System. National grid reference discharge point: SX 44798 72740; Receiving environment: discharge to Trench Arch Drainage System; Effluent type: Trench Arch effluent; Volume: 0.153 cubic metres per day.
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Mary’s Church (Annex) Churchyard, Chithurst, West Sussex ; St Paul’s Church Churchyard (Extension), Coven, Wolverhampton, West Midlands; All Saints Churchyard, Elsham, Brigg, North Lincolnshire.
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St John the Baptist Churchyard, Hammerwich, Burntwood, Staffordshire; St Thomas Becket Church Churchyard, Bridford, Exeter, Devon; and St Mary’s Churchyard, Thundridge, Hertfordshire.
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 Prebendary John Woolmer (February 2026) President’s Decision on referral to tribunal (section 17), (20 February 2026).
- The Revd David Tudor (February 2026): Tribunal Determination: Determination on Penalty [See also The Revd Canon David Tudor (October 2024): Decision].
Penalties by consent
Name: The Revd DEAN RAYMOND EDWARD HALL
Diocese: Worcester
Date imposed: 12th January 2026
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 and prohibition from ministry for a period of 5 years (with effect from 1st February 2026)
Name: The Revd SION AWEN MIHANGEL HUGHES CAREW
Diocese: Lincoln
Date imposed: 25th January 2026
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 EDWARD PHILLIPS-SMITH
Diocese: Chelmsford
Date imposed: 8th January 2026
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 TIMOTHY BILES
Diocese: Salisbury
Date imposed: 18th December 2025
Relevant CDM section: 30(1)(a)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d)
Penalty: Prohibition for life
Safeguarding
Anthony Pierce
The Church in Wales has published the findings of a detailed review into the way in which the former Bishop of Swansea and Brecon was appointed to senior church roles in the 1990s despite senior clergy knowing of sexual abuse allegations against him. [Post] [CiW Review].
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. Decisions taken on Thursday 11 December 2025 are yet to be reported.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Phased replacement of gas boiler in Grade I church, (10 February 2026).
General/Miscellaneous
- Anthony Pierce Review Published, (26 February 2026).
- Bishop of Lincoln suspended, (22 February 2026).
- Significant opposition to significant rise in burial fees, The Church Times reported that Synod voted overwhelmingly against the proposed increase of £1000 in burial fees, (18 February 2026)
- David Tudor Statement: A Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Southwark which in November upheld a new complaint against David Tudor under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 has today published its penalty of a lifetime prohibition from ministry. This is the second lifetime prohibition against Tudor. (16 February 2026).
[Top]
Updated: 27 February 2025 at 16:04.
[*] 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.