Judgment Search


Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 1 October 2022

Index by Dioceses of 2022 judgments on this web site as at 1 October 2022



The works proposed comprised a number of non-contentious repairs and a major reordering. The reordering included the creation of toilet facilities at the north-west porch and the creation of a two-storey 'pod' in the north transept, to accommodate two meeting rooms; an area for children and parents during services; a servery area for refreshments; a space for community use; a small enclosable room for counselling; and two offices for clergy use. Historic England and the Victorian Society had objections and reservations about these items, but did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant a faculty, stating that, "the need for these facilities, and the benefits respectively enuring to them, are sufficient to justify this intrusion on the character and significance of the building as a whole."

There were various re- ordering proposals for the unlisted church. The main objections were to the removal of ten pews and their replacement with folding chairs, and also to safety aspects of the proposed kitchen facilities. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out their case and directed the issue of a faculty.

Faculty granted for major re-ordering of a Grade 1 listed church. Principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012] (Court of Arches) considered.

The proposals included: the replacement of the church pews with chairs; alteration of the dais in the chancel; the baptistry; new heating, lighting and and audio-visual system; redecoration; the building of an extension for offices; and a garden area. English Heritage, the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council all had concerns Chancellor determined that the extension was acceptable, and that the pews were of little merit and could be replaced. As regards the font, the Chancellor was satisfied that the batistry was effectively redundant and that the case for moving the font was made. He therefore granted a faculty. The judgment contains an extensive review of the law and practice relating to fonts.

A judgment dealing with a matter outstanding from Re Holy Trinity Wandsworth [2012], namely, the repositioning of the font and the baptistry screen. Re Duffield discussed. Faculty granted.

The petitioners wished to remove the remaining 19 pews in the church nave and replace them with chairs (of the award-winning 'Theo' design) and to modify and restore the floor to create a single level worship space across the main body of the church. The aim was to permit people to participate in a wider range of worship and other church and community activities. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the pews, but later withdrew their objection. The Chancellor granted a faculty, finding that there was a clear justification for the proposals in order to meet the need for flexibility in the modern use of the church building.

The petitioners applied for, firstly, a confirmatory faculty in respect of works previously carried out without faculty, including destruction of the pulpit and reuse of the timber to make a new font, and cutting down a mature tree; and, secondly, a faculty to authorise the construction of a prayer room, the re-siting of an 1831 font and the moving of an 1888 font to a baby memorial in the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items, except that the proposed relocation of the 1888 font to the baby memorial in the churchyard was adjourned generally.

The College sought permission for certain improvements, mainly to the chancel of the chapel, including the permanent retention of seating platforms; the upgrading of the lighting system; the removal of carpet from the majority of the chancel; and the repair of heating grilles to the nave floor. Notwithstanding an objection by the Victrorian Society to the fixing of transparent balustrades to the platforms, in order to prevent falls, the Chancellor decided to grant a faculty for all the works, being satisfied that any harm to the significance of the Chapel as a building of special architectural or historic interest would be relatively minor.

His Hon. Judge David Hodge was specially appointed by the Bishop of Huntingdon to act as Deputy Chancellor to determine the petition presented by the College, which sought permission to remove from the College Chapel a Grinling Gibbons memorial to Tobias Rustat, who had been a benefactor of the College in the 17th century. The College contended that Rustat's investment in companies connected with the slave trade created a serious obstacle to the Chapel’s ability to provide a credible Christian ministry and witness to the College community and a safe space for secular College functions and events. The Deputy Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He considered that the removal of the Rustat memorial from the west wall of the Chapel would cause considerable, or notable, harm to the significance of the Chapel as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and he was not satisfied  that a clear and sufficiently convincing justification for the removal of the memorial had been made by the College.

A faculty was sought for the following in the unlisted church which was built in 1969-1970: replacement of the existing twenty pews with one hundred and twenty Alpha SB2M chairs and four stacking trollies; a data projector to the front archway; an overhead retractable screen to the wall above the reredos; a lighting bar and stage lights to the front archway; replacement of the existing sound desk housing with a larger housing to accommodate additional equipment. Two parishioners wrote a letter of objection, but did not become parties opponent. They claimed that there had been insufficient consultation in the parish and that the audio-visual equipment had already been installed. The Chancellor was satisfied that there had been adequate consultation and that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works. As for part of the works being completed already, the Chancellor accepted the explanation and apology given by the petitioners. A faculty was granted in respect of all the works.