Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during August 2026
Summaries to the seven consistory court judgments reviewed during August are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included [*]:
- Procedural
- Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Exhumation
- Churchyards and burials
- Organs
This 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 L&RUK posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
An index to these and earlier judgments in here.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
[top]
Re St. Mary the Virgin Beachamwell [2026] ECC Ely 1 The Chancellor considered a faculty petition to restore the Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin, Beachamwell, following a devastating fire in February 2022[1]. He assessed the proposals under the ‘Duffield’ principles governing alterations to historic churches, and considered objections from anonymous objectors, concerning inter alia accessibility, provision of a toilet, paths, seating, and the font’s location[2] and [14].
Submissions on behalf of the PCC were drafted by Gregory Jones KC “an experienced ecclesiastical lawyer and Chancellor”[16] to [35]. The court accepted the decision of the Parochial Church Council not to install an internal lavatory, finding that this was justified by the church’s exceptional historic significance, limited space, practical constraints, and the availability of accessible facilities in the nearby village hall. The Chancellor rejected arguments that a toilet was legally required under equality or health and safety legislation[39]. However, the court held that if the village hall facilities were to be relied upon, a wheelchair-accessible path between the church and village hall was necessary[43].
The proposal to level the church floor was approved, while concerns remained about the proposed location of the font, requiring further consultation. The restoration using pews, replacement memorial windows, and other reinstatement works was supported. A faculty was granted subject to conditions [49](a) to (e), including provision of the accessible path and further consideration of drainage pipes and font placement. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Beachamwell [2026] ECC Ely 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Reordering and alternative uses
Re St. Peter Addingham [2026] ECC Lee 3 Hill CH. considered a faculty petition to reorder the west end of the Grade I listed church. The original proposals included removing three pews, improving the accessibility of the WC, replacing inner porch doors with a single glazed timber door, and altering baptistery panelling[1].
Following objections and negotiations with a Party Opponent, the panelling proposal was withdrawn and the petition proceeded on the remaining works. However, the Chancellor noted that although the petitioners had removed the panelling proposal from the instant petition, they put down a marker that the matter was likely to come before the Court for determination on a future occasion[3].
The petitioners argued that the changes would improve accessibility, create a more welcoming environment, and better support contemporary worship, particularly for families, children, wheelchair users, and those with mobility difficulties [9]. The DAC supported the revised scheme, considering its impact on the historic fabric to be minimal. Objectors raised concerns about security, heat loss, the WC door arrangement, necessity of the works, and disruption to worship.
Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that any harm to the church’s significance would be minimal, that the justification for the works was cogent, and that the resulting public benefits outweighed the limited harm. A faculty was therefore granted for the revised proposals, excluding the baptistery panelling works[14]. [Re St. Peter Addingham [2026] ECC Lee 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Kempsey [2026] ECC Wor 2 The Chancellor granted a faculty permitting the exhumation and reinterment of Bryan Kenneth Jones’ remains within St Mary’s Churchyard, Kempsey. Mr. Jones had reserved a burial plot in 2005, but on the day of his funeral it was discovered that a neighbouring coffin encroached on the reserved space, making burial there impossible[3]. An alternative grave was allocated at very short notice without consultation with the family, and they were not offered the option of delaying the funeral while the issue was resolved[4].
Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor noted that Christian burial is normally permanent and exhumation requires exceptional circumstances. However, she found this case analogous to a “mistake” because Mr Jones was not buried in the reserved grave he had chosen, and the family’s decisions were made under significant pressure. The family acted promptly, all close relatives supported the application, and relocation would avoid disturbing another family’s loved one.
Whilst the case was not on all fours with previous reported ‘mistake’ cases, Humphreys Ch. considered that in her view was sufficiently similar to be permitted[13]. The court therefore held that the test of exceptionality was met and authorised exhumation, subject to immediate reinterment in another agreed location within the same churchyard and the process being carried out reverently and discreetly[15]. [Re St. Mary Kempsey [2026] ECC Wor 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re Pershore Cemetery [2026] ECC Wor 3 The Chancellor refused a petition to exhume and relocate the cremated remains of David Richard Jones from Pershore Cemetery to Wooburn Green Cemetery. The application, made by his son, argued that David and his late wife Mary wished to be buried together near family in Buckinghamshire and that Pershore had little relevance to the family[4].
Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery, Humphreys Ch. emphasised that Christian burial is presumed permanent and exhumation requires exceptional circumstances. She found no such circumstances here. There were no medical reasons, no mistake in the original burial, and the application was made nearly 30 years after the interment. The support of family members, while relevant, was insufficient on its own[15].
The court noted that Mary Jones’s 2011 will expressly stated her wish for her ashes to be interred at Pershore Cemetery with her husband, and there was no evidence that she changed that intention before her death. A family grave could still be created at Pershore, making relocation unnecessary. The inconvenience of visiting or maintaining the grave was not an exceptional factor justifying exhumation as was clearly set out in Re Astwood Cemetery[19]. Accordingly, the petition was refused[20]. [Re Pershore Cemetery [2026] ECC Wor 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Michael Brantham [2026] ECC SEI 1 Christine Danes(CD) and her brother Leslie Dunthorne(LD) petitioned to exhume their father Dennis Dunthorne’s cremated remains, interred at St Michael’s Church, Brantham in 2007, so they could be scattered with their mother Pamela’s ashes in the River Orwell[1]. Their mother had long regretted the original decision and believed it conflicted with her husband’s wishes[4]. The application was made in the form of an email dated 20 July 2025 from CD; two emails from LD were said to “give permission” for the exhumation of their father, although they did not mention what they wished to happen to them after that. Gau Ch. indicated that he was prepared to accept that they too wanted the ashes to be scattered with those of their mother[5].
The incumbent and the Church wardens had no objections to the exhumation, but the incumbent raised the issue that the cremated remains may well have become integrated into the soil after this length of time; he proposed that the surrounding soil should also be removed to ensure that all the ashes are exhumed[6]. The petitioners were said to be fully aware of the likelihood that there may not be any recoverable ashes when the grave was opened, but as their mother was so upset about her husband being in the churchyard, the family felt that they must at least try to fulfil her last wish[8].
Applying Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the Chancellor emphasised that exhumation is permitted only exceptionally, although he stated that he did not consider that the guidelines were set in stone, and was entitled to use his discretion in considering other relevant matters whether raised by the petitioners or not[10]. However, unlike many other cases that come before Consistory Courts the application was not for the re-interment in either consecrated or even unconsecrated ground, but in the river Orwell[11]. Guidance was available in Canon 38, in a consideration of the Convocation of York in 1951, and from the Legal Advisory Committee. However, he bore in mind that no Anglican minister would be involved in the proposed scattering and that this would be a deliberate removal from consecrated ground not just to an unconsecrated area, but to a running river[12].
Although the incumbent and PCC were not opposed to the exhumation, the proposed scattering in a river did not constitute a family grave and raised concerns under Church of England rules concerning the reverent disposal of ashes. The possibility that the remains had over time been integrated into the soil further weighed against exhumation. The petition was therefore dismissed. [Re St. Michael Brantham [2026] ECC SEI 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Lawrence Mereworth [2026] ECC Roc 2 The judgment concerns a confirmatory faculty for restoration of Alan Waller’s 1955 memorial at St. Lawrence, Mereworth. The memorial had been substantially cleaned and repaired, its lettering replaced, and the recorded month of death corrected from September to June. Bright blue chippings had also been added. A significant issue was ownership. Under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018 and the common law, ownership passed through the deceased’s heirs according to pre-1926 rules of descent. As Alan’s eldest sons and their descendants had died without surviving descendants, his surviving son John became the owner. John opposed the restoration. The Chancellor held that an owner’s opposition is important but not conclusive. A faculty may be granted where the circumstances constitute an exception to the normal rule that the owner controls alterations. Here, the memorial was objectively deteriorated, unstable and barely legible, and its inscription contained a factual error. The Chancellor concluded that a faculty would have been granted even before the work was undertaken and therefore granted the confirmatory faculty. The faculty required removal of the blue chippings within three months, with replacement approved by the incumbent and PCC. [Re St. Lawrence Mereworth [2026] ECC Roc 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re All Saints and St Margaret, Chattisham [2026] ECC SEI 2 The Chancellor considered a petition to remove and rehome a nineteenth-century pipe organ, replace it with a digital organ, remove and alter certain pews, level part of the floor, and install a kitchenette with water supply and storage to make the church more flexible for worship and community use[1].
The organ itself was built in the early part of the nineteenth century, between 1825 and 1830 and built by Thomas Elliott, a highly regarded organ builder[5]. It was purchased and introduced at some time after 1969, replacing a reed organ that was in place. For the purposes of the Petition, the Chancellor assumed it was installed with the benefit of a Faculty[6].
The petition was supported by the PCC and the DAC, which considered the organ historically significant but under used and an obstacle to developing the church’s mission[8]. The DAC advised that its removal would cause only a small degree of harm to the church’s significance and would allow valuable new facilities[14]. Objectors argued that the organ was important for worship, weddings, funerals and the annual carol service; that a kitchen was unnecessary; and that community activities could instead use the village hall in the next village.
Applying the Duffield test, the Chancellor found that any heritage harm was limited and outweighed by the benefits to mission, pastoral well-being and the viable use of the church. The faculty was granted, subject to conditions requiring the organ’s installation (subject to faculty) at St Leonard’s, Wixoe, expert removal, and replacement with a suitable digital organ. [Re All Saints and St Margaret, Chattisham [2026] ECC SEI 2] [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 Decisions
- The Revd Canon Andrew Cornes (August 2026) Decision
Penalties by consent
Name: The Revd GRANT BOLTON-DEBBAGE
Diocese: Southwark
Date imposed: 18th August 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Rebuke (with effect from 21st August 2026)
Name: The Revd THOMAS EDWARD GLOVER
Diocese: Chester
Date imposed: 14th July 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Limited Prohibition for 10 years (with effect from 10th July 2026)
Name: The Revd Gary Hughes
Diocese: Liverpool
Date imposed: 13th July 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(c) neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office
Penalty: Rebuke and injunction
Name: The Revd ALISON JANE COZENS
Diocese: Durham
Date Imposed: 9th July 2026
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Injunction and Conditional Deferment for 5 years (with effect from 21st July 2026).
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
Links to the decisions made by the CFCE, for the last five months, “Form 10s”, are reproduced below. The equivalent “Form 8s” on the applications that the Commission examined have also been published.
2025
2026
See CFCE Decisions – Update, (28 August 2026).
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Procedural
- Abuse of faculty jurisdiction in Oxford Diocese, (5 August 2025).
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Fire damage and the faculty jurisdiction, (24 August 2026).
Churchyards
- Headstone ownership – the fine print, (27 August 2026).
General/Miscellaneous
- CDM statement: Bishop Paul Butler, (18 August 2026).
- Rev Canon Andrew Cornes – CDM Tribunal, (6 August 2026).
[Top]
Revised: 29 August 2026 at 15:12.
[*] 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.