Judgment Search

Downloads

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

Re St. Peter Church Lawford [2016] ECC Cov 3

The petitioner requested permission for a memorial in the form of a small York Stone boulder with a slate plaque on its front face, in memory of her late husband. The memorial was ostensibly outside the churchyard regulations and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve it. After considering the principles to be applied when deciding whether to allow a memorial outside the regulations, the Chancellor decided that this was an appropriate case in which he should grant a faculty.

Re St. Peter Church Lawford [2019] ECC Cov 4

The Rector and Churchwardens wished to replace the lead on the south aisle and vestry roofs with terne-coated stainless steel. The Church had suffered from lead thefts in the past and already had a terne-coated steel roof over the north porch. The remaining lead had been repaired a number of times in recent years and was regarded as having reached the end of its serviceable life after 100 years. Historic England objected to terne-coated steel, and took the view that the lead should be replaced with lead. Historic England's own advice in its booklet ‘Metal Thefts from Historic Buildings’ suggested that stainless steel was a suitable alternative to lead, where there had been lead theft and repeated attacks. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the Petitioners have shown good reason for the replacement of lead with terne-coated stainless steel, and he granted a faculty.

Re St. Peter Croft-on-Tees [2015] Mark Hill Ch. (Leeds)

The petitioner sought permission to add kerbs and chippings to a memorial on an existing grave. The reasons given were: (1) the petitioner wished to have the name of his late wife and in due time the names of his brother and himself recorded on the grave, there being insufficient space on the existing memorial; (2) chippings secured by kerbs would eliminate or minimise recent invasive damage from moles; (3) there was a precedent for kerbs and chippings on neighbouring graves. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, but indicated that he would look favourably on an application for a faculty to replace the existing stone with a larger stone which would have room for additional names.

Re St. Peter Dorchester [2022] ECC Sal 4

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to move a memorial from inside the church to the County Museum next door to the church and erect a replacement memorial in the church. The reasons for the proposal were, firstly, concern that, in the current social climate,  the wording of the original memorial might offend some visitors to the church, as it referred to the person commemorated - John Gordon, a plantation overseer (and later owner) in Jamaica - who repulsed a rebellion of 'a large body of negroes' in Jamaica in 1760; secondly, that the continued presence of the memorial in the church would be harmful to the mission and message of today’s church. Some consultees favoured removal of the memorial, some favoured retention with interpretative material. The Chancellor determined that in this case the public benefit to be derived from the removal of the memorial, subject to its replacement with a memorial omitting details which might cause offence, would outweigh the harm caused.

Re St. Peter Dunchurch [2013] Stephen Eyre Ch. (Coventry)

A widow had reserved by Faculty a grave next to the grave of her late husband. By mistake someone else was buried in the grave reserved by the widow. Faculty granted to the widow for exhumation of the remains of her husband, and reinterment in another part of the churchyard and reservation for her of a grave next to her late husband's new grave.

Re St. Peter East Bridgford [2016] ECC S&N 4

The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the movement of the altar westwards by 60cm to increase the amount of space behind the altar for celebrating the Eucharist. Applying the tests laid down in Re St Alkmund’s Duffield [2013], the Deputy Chancellor took the view that the proposals would not cause any harm to the church as a building of special architectural and historic significance, and accordingly granted a faculty.

Re St. Peter Edgmond [2017] ECC Lic 4

The petitioner's mother died in 1993, having expressed a wish to be cremated, and her remains were interred in the area set aside for cremated remains in Edgmond churchyard. The Petitioner's father died in 2016, having expressed a wish to be buried near to the remains of his wife, and his body was interred in another part of the same churchyard. The petitioner and his sisters wished to have the cremated remains of their mother exhumed and reinterred in their father's grave, so that both parents' remains would be together in a family grave. The Chancellor considered this an appropriate case in which to grant a faculty, as it was a case where "there is a proper and understandable proposal to reunite the remains of husband and wife in one plot in the same churchyard as currently contains those remains in separate plots".

Re St. Peter Forncett [2013] Ruth Arlow Ch. (Norwich)

Faculty sought for exhumation of husband's remains from grave in Norfolk and reinterment in a grave in Co. Atrim, the widow petitioner and her daughter having had to move, "for financial reasons" to live near their family in Co. Antrim. Faculty refused, the Chancellor being unable to find sufficient justification to grant a Faculty within the guidelines set out in the Court of Arches decision in Re Blagdon.

Re St. Peter Foston [2013] Mark Bishop Ch. (Lincoln)

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the exhumation of cremated remains from one family grave and re-interment in another family grave, the remains having been interred 28 years previously.

Re St. Peter Frimley [2022] ECC Gui 2

In 2010, there had been a major reordering approved by faculty. This involved replacing the dark wood podium, altar, credence table, lectern and choir chairs in the chancel with new furniture in a light oak. The Parochial Church Council now wished to replace the dark pine nave pews with upholstered light oak chairs, partly because of the poor condition of many of the pews and partly to permit more flexible use of the church. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the pews, and they also objected to the idea of upholstered chairs, as did the Ancient Monuments Society and the Church Buildings Council. The Chancellor was satisfied that the removal of the pews would not materially harm the interior of the church and would blend in better with the light oak furniture in the chancel. He was also persuaded that the proposed chairs were suitable for flexible use of the church, and the proposed colour would fit well with other colours in the church. He therefore granted a faculty