Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during June 2026
Summaries to the ten consistory court judgments reviewed during June are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included [*]:
This monthly review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
An index to these and earlier judgments in here.
See Re Calderstones Cemetery [2026] ECC Bla 1.
Re St. Nicholas Rotherfield Greys [2026] ECC Oxf 8 By a faculty petition, dated 22 April 2026, Mrs Sarah Hemming, as the daughter and lawful personal representative of the deceased, applies for the grant of a faculty authorising the disinterment of the cremated remains of her late father, Mr Richard Hodgkin, and their re-interment in the grave of his wife (and the petitioner’s mother), Mrs Elizabeth Hodgkin, within the churchyard of St Nicholas, Rotherfield Greys [2]. The petition states that Mr Hodgkin died on 30 June 2024 and his body was cremated. His cremated remains were interred in the churchyard of the parish church of St Nicholas, Rotherfield Greys, Oxfordshire, on 20 July 2024. At the time the father’s cremated remains were interred, it was the shared and settled intention of the deceased and his wife, Mrs Elizabeth Hodgkin, that their mortal remains should ultimately be laid to rest together [3]. Mrs Hodgkin was buried in October 2025 in the churchyard of St Nicholas, Rotherfield Greys. As matters now stand, the deceased and his wife are not laid to rest together. This is not as a result of any change of mind, dissatisfaction with the original interment, or matters of convenience, but rather because of a material change in circumstances arising after Mr Hodgkin’s own interment.
The purpose of the proposed exhumation is solely to permit the re-interment of the deceased’s cremated remains within the grave of his late wife, thereby completing an existing family grave in which one spouse is already buried. The proposed re-interment will take place within the same consecrated churchyard, and is intended to be final and permanent [5].
Hodges Ch. stated:
“[12]. On any application for a faculty authorising the exhumation of human or cremated remains – and no distinction is to be made between them – essentially three matters fall for consideration:
(1) The ‘threshold’ condition of whether the court has the necessary jurisdiction to order their exhumation.
(2) Whether the court should exercise its discretion to make such an order.
(3) The conditions subject to which any exhumation should be ordered.
and commented:
“[15] …in my judgment, the consistory court should reject the temptation to attempt to shoehorn any particular exhumation application into one of the existing categories of case in which exhumation has previously been permitted. In Blagdon the Court of Arches was simply seeking to identify various factors which can arise in connection with a faculty petition for exhumation. It was not seeking to provide any comprehensive, or exhaustive, list of the categories of case in which exhumation may be permissible”.
Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor reaffirmed the strong presumption that Christian burial is permanent and that exhumation requires exceptional circumstances, but found such circumstances existed because:
(i) the couple’s settled joint intention to be buried together had been frustrated by Elizabeth’s later unilateral decision;
(ii) all close relatives supported the petition;
(iii) the parish rector supported it;
(iv) the remains would stay within the same churchyard and (v) the case involved no issue of convenience or “portable remains.”
The faculty was granted, subject to conditions including prompt exhumation, respectful handling by a funeral director, immediate reinterment in Elizabeth’s grave, and release of the original ashes plot back to the parish. [Re St. Nicholas Rotherfield Greys [2026] ECC Oxf 8] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Helen’s Cemetery [2026] ECC Liv 3 The daughter of Janet Kelly sought a faculty to exhume her mother’s cremated remains from a consecrated grave and reinter them with those of her recently deceased husband, Stephen Kelly, in a family grave. Janet had died in 2006 aged 42 after cancer. Her ashes were placed with her parents on what the family regarded as a temporary basis, because she and Stephen had always intended to be buried together. No headstone inscription was added, reflecting that expectation[5] to [7].
The Chancellor reviewed the strict legal principles governing exhumation, which require exceptional circumstances, because Christian burial is intended to be permanent. Although a desire to reunite family members is not normally sufficient, the court found this case exceptional.
Particular weight was given to the extraordinary circumstances following Janet’s death: Stephen was left as sole parent to three young children while coping with profound grief and administrative pressures. The court accepted that the temporary interment resulted from those circumstances and from a genuine belief that the couple could later be buried together. The absence of any inscription supported that understanding. Accordingly, despite the 20-year delay, the Chancellor granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment so that Janet and Stephen could finally be buried together. [Re St. Helen’s Cemetery [2026] ECC Liv 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
- Development of churchyard
- Designation of closed churchyard
- Churchyard Regulations
- Reservation of grave space
Re Holy Trinity Bracknell [2026] ECC Oxf 9 The Chancellor considered a
petition by the churchwardens of the Grade II listed Church to install a small York stone patio with three fixed benches in the churchyard near the vestry entrance. The proposal aimed to create a welcoming space for visitors, encourage community interaction, and support the church’s mission. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended approval. Three parishioners objected, raising concerns about security, potential anti-social behaviour, noise, litter, rats, and possible interference with the memorial garden. None became formal parties opponent, so the petition was treated as unopposed. The petitioners responded that the vestry was routinely secured, litter and rodent issues could be managed, and there was no evidence that the patio would increase crime or nuisance. Applying the Duffield principles, the Chancellor found that the proposal would cause no harm to the church’s architectural or historic significance. He considered the objections manageable and within the parish’s discretion to address. Concluding that the patio would enhance the churchyard and support the church’s mission, he granted the faculty, subject to standard conditions relating to archaeology, planning, insurance, and implementation within six months. [Re Holy Trinity Bracknell [2026] ECC Oxf 9] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Calderstones Cemetery [2026] ECC Bla 1 The Consistory Court considered a preliminary legal issue arising from a faculty petition by Remembrance Parks Construction Ltd. The company sought permission for works on consecrated land within a former cemetery, including chapel and lychgate restoration, road improvements, parking, landscaping, and utilities, all ancillary to a proposed crematorium on adjoining land that had already been deconsecrated.
This judgment is a sequel to, and should be read in conjunction with, the case management judgment handed down in this matter on 22 October 2025 which bears the neutral citation number: Re Calderstones Cemetery [2025] ECC Bla 3. [2].
The Friends of Calderstones and Brockhall Cemeteries opposed the petition. The central question was whether consecrated land can lawfully be used for purposes ancillary to a secular crematorium without first being deconsecrated. The objectors argued that consecration permanently dedicates land to sacred purposes and that secular use is therefore impermissible.
The petitioner contended that modern authorities show increasing flexibility in permitting secular uses of consecrated land where appropriate. Reviewing extensive ecclesiastical case law, the Chancellor rejected the argument that consecrated land may never be used for secular purposes. He held that the law has developed beyond rigid historical categories and that there is no absolute prohibition on ancillary secular uses. Accordingly, the preliminary issue was determined in the petitioner’s favour, allowing the faculty application to proceed to consideration on its merits rather than being barred in principle. [Re Calderstones Cemetery [2026] ECC Bla 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Peter Woolhampton [2026] ECC Oxf 7 By an application dated 25 July 2025, Mr Albert Mark Brazil applied for a faculty authorising the introduction of an upright memorial into the churchyard of St Peter, Woolhampton notwithstanding that it fells outside the current churchyard regulations. The proposal is to lay Mrs Brazil’s ashes to rest, and to install the headstone, under the expansive canopy of a yew tree, near to the north-western boundary of the churchyard.
The headstone will contain the image of an open book, with a rose design running across the top. The memorial will be made of standard dark grey/charcoal granite, with a polished front and fascia (although the applicant would have preferred the headstone to be black in colour). Its dimensions will be 30 by 12 by 3 inches. The lettering for the inscription will be in a gold fill colour. Spanning both pages of the open book, the inscription will read (with line breaks indicated by the symbol / and the page division by the symbol //)[1].
The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Parochial Church Council objected, arguing that the memorial departed significantly from the Diocese of Oxford’s Churchyard Regulations and would not preserve the churchyard’s visual coherence and dignity [3] an [5] respectively. The Chancellor accepted that Mr Brazil’s proposal reflected his wife’s wishes and the family’s grief, but emphasised that churchyards are consecrated communal spaces whose appearance must be considered for future generations. Applying the merits-based approach endorsed in Re St Giles Exhall, the Chancellor held that non-compliance with regulations is not automatically fatal, but found this memorial undesirable.
The proposed location was in one of the few areas reserved for future burials; the polished black stone, gold lettering, and elaborate design conflicted with the churchyard’s character; and the inscription was excessively long, sentimental, and insufficiently reverent. A faculty was therefore refused. Re St. Peter Woolhampton [2026] ECC Oxf 7] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re All Saints Broughton [2026] ECC Lee 1 Funeral director Susan Smith petitioned for a confirmatory faculty concerning a headstone unlawfully installed in December 2025 at All Saints, Broughton. The installation, in memory of the late Ian Watson, was carried out by the funeral director without prior permission, despite her awareness of the Churchyard Regulations requiring it. Her justification — wanting the bereaved widow to see the memorial before Christmas — was rejected as unreasonable, and her conduct was described as ill-thought and reckless, causing avoidable distress. The Chancellor was concerned about a risk of repetition due to the funeral director’s poor understanding of the faculty jurisdiction. He also accepted unchallenged evidence that the headstone did not comply with the churchyards regulations, particularly regarding height and potential safety concerns, with similar issues noted in two other installations handled by the same funeral director. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty conditionally upon an independent mason certifying the safety and compliance of the three headstones at the funeral director’s expense, and that she pay the costs of the proceedings. Failure to comply within 28 days would result in removal of the Watson headstone. The Chancellor declined to ban the funeral director from future work in the diocese, but reserved the right to revisit his conclusion should the certification process reveal matters of concern. [Re All Saints Broughton [2026] ECC Lee 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary the Virgin, Aldworth [2026] ECC Oxf 10 The Chancellor granted a faculty permitting a memorial for the late singer-songwriter Marianne Faithfull in the churchyard of St Mary’s, Aldworth. The proposed headstone fell outside the diocesan Churchyard Regulations because it included Faithfull’s signature in cursive script on the reverse, together with a short extract from one of her final songs. The court reviewed the law governing memorials that do not comply with churchyard regulations, noting that the correct approach is a merits-based assessment rather than requiring exceptional circumstances. Non-compliance with regulations is a relevant factor but is not, by itself, a reason to refuse a faculty. The Chancellor determined that the proposed design was attractive, dignified, and appropriate. The song lyric reflected Faithfull’s spirituality, while her signature expressed her creativity and public identity as a performer. The PCC, incumbent, and DAC all supported the proposal, and no objections were received. The Chancellor granted the faculty subject to agreement on the precise location of the memorial within the grave space. [Re St. Mary the Virgin, Aldworth [2026] ECC Oxf 10] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary the Virgin Greenham [2026] ECC Oxf 11 The Chancellor granted a faculty authorising the burial in the churchyard of an urn containing the ashes of “Gary Bonsor”, which had been left at a burger van during a race meeting at Newbury Racecourse and later handed to the police. Despite extensive efforts by the racecourse, police and crematoria to trace relatives or the owner, no next of kin could be identified. The parish sought permission to inter the ashes respectfully and record the burial location. The Chancellor held that, although a faculty might not have been strictly necessary because the churchyard remained open for burials, obtaining one was appropriate given the absence of a registrar’s certificate or coroner’s order. He granted the faculty, directing that the interment take place within 28 days. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Greenham [2026] ECC Oxf 11] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Michael Horton [2026] ECC Oxf 6 Georgina Beldom and her adult daughter Angelina sought a faculty reserving a double-depth grave space for 25 years next to the grave of Georgina’s father in St Michael’s churchyard. The petition was supported by the incumbent, churchwardens, and PCC. However, the churchyard had space remaining for only about six months of further burials, making the requested plot one of the last available spaces.
The petitioners relied on their long-standing family connection with the parish, the presence of five generations of family members buried there, Angelina’s severe epilepsy, autism and learning difficulties, and cultural beliefs within the traveller community favouring burial rather than cremation. The Chancellor reviewed the principles governing grave-space reservations, particularly where burial space is scarce. He reiterated that, when churchyard capacity is very limited, reservations should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, because they may prejudice the burial rights of other parishioners.
Although he expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioners and acknowledged their strong family and cultural connections to the churchyard, he concluded that these factors did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required. The petition was therefore dismissed. [Re St. Michael Horton [2026] ECC Oxf 6] [Top of section] [Top of page].
Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1 The Chancellor refused Mrs Denise Blundell’s application to reserve a grave space for herself and her husband in the churchyard of St Botolph, Newbold-on-Avon. Mrs Blundell’s mother and sister are buried there, and she argued that being buried near her sister was of profound emotional importance. The court noted that the churchyard has only 25 spaces remaining and, at the current burial rate, is likely to be full within four years. Mrs Blundell is neither a parishioner nor on the church electoral roll, although the incumbent, churchwardens and PCC supported her application. Applying established ecclesiastical case law, the Chancellor held that where burial space is limited, grave reservations should only be granted in exceptional circumstances because they may prejudice the rights of parishioners who have a legal entitlement to burial. The petitioner bore the burden of proving such exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor found that the emotional bond and mutual promises between Mrs Blundell and her sister, while sincere and deeply felt, were not “markedly out of the ordinary” and did not justify reserving a space. The petition was therefore dismissed. [Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1] [Top of section] [Top of page].
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in St Mary’s Churchyard and Burial Ground, Elloughton, East Riding of Yorkshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
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 2 July 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:
Church Treasure
- Hatchments, new and old, (22 June).
Churchyards
- Burial of unknown ashes without documentation, (26 June 2026).
- Reservation of spaces in churchyards: update, (13 June 2026).
- Church court approves memorial headstone to Marianne Faithfull, (11 June 2026).
- Faculty conditional upon report of independent memorial masons, (3 June).
- Burial of pets in churchyards – a “Victorian” solution, (3 June 2026)
- Burial of pets in churchyards – an overview, (1 June 2026).
General/Miscellaneous
- Recommendations on Makin Review: Final Report, (23 June 2026).
[Top]
Updated: 30 June 2026 at 12:51.
[*] 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.