In 1970, a recreation centre for children had been erected on part of the consecrated churchyard, adjacent to the Church of England School. In 2012 the Chancellor had granted a faculty for the demolition of the 1970 building and the erection of a new school and community building in its place. There was no party opponent to the application. In 2014 an application was made by Spitalfields Open Space Ltd. for a restitution order requiring the new building to be demolished, as it had been erected unlawfully on consecrated ground. The Chancellor dismissed the application. There was an application for an appeal to the Court of Arches. The Rector subsequently applied for a confirmatory faculty. The The Court of Arches remitted the application for a restitution order for determination by a Deputy Chancellor, who granted a confirmatory faculty for the building.

Leave to appeal granted by the Court of Arches on limited grounds.

Spitalfields Open Space Limited and others v The Governing Body of Christ Church Primary School and others (No 2) [2019] EACC 1

In 2012/13 a building (“the Nursery”) was erected on part of the disused, but still consecrated, churchyard to the south-east of Christ Church, Spitalfields, in the diocese of London. The Nursery was erected unlawfully, in contravention of section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which prohibits the erection of buildings in consecrated churchyards. In December 2017 the acting Deputy Chancellor of the Diocese of London issued a confirmatory faculty in respect of the Nursery, and refused to make a restoration order requiring the demolition of the Nursery.  She also held that Spitalfields Open Space Limited did not have a sufficient interest to take part in the legal proceedings. On an appeal to the Court of Arches, the Court determined that:
(1) Spitalfields Open Space Limited had a sufficient interest;
(2) the Consistory Court had not had the power to grant a confirmatory faculty;
(3) an application by a Mr. Ouvry to intervene in the appeal should be refused;
(4) it was appropriate to make a restoration order, requiring the demolition of the Nursery.
(5) to allow time for the occupants of the Nursery to relocate, the restoration of the site need not be completed until 1 February 2029.

A order relating to costs and other matters in respect of the Court of Arches judgment in Re Christ Church Spitalfields [2019] EACC 1, which resulted in the making of a restoration order requiring the demolition of the children's nursery building erected on the closed churchyard.

The Rector and Parochial Church Council wished to enter into a management agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, under Section 6 of the Open Spaces Act 1906, in respect of certain parts of the closed churchyard of Christ Church Spitalfields, which adjoins Christ Church Primary School. This judgment was an preliminary judgment to decide on certain issues, including whether the court had the jurisdiction to decide and grant the petition sought by the Petitioners. (The Chancellor determined the petition in his subsequent judgment: Re Christ Church Spitalfields [2024] ECC Lon 3.)

The Rector and Parochial Church Council wished to enter into a management agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, under Section 6 of the Open Spaces Act 1906, in respect of certain parts of the closed churchyard of Christ Church Spitalfields, which adjoins Christ Church Primary School. The petitioners had amended the petition by omitting references to certain parts of the closed churchyard adjoining the school.The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the completion of a manangment agreement limited to the parts of the closed churchyard specified in the amended petition.

The petition proposed an extensive reordering of the Grade II late Victorian church, which would "provide a more flexible space, improved facilities, proper disabled access, proper facilities for families and children, modern heating, modern lighting and a more attractive physical environment to develop the Parish's mission." The Chancellor granted a faculty for the proposed works, with the exception of the proposal to cover all the Victorian tiles in the nave with a wooden floor. The Chancellor stated that he would deal with the issue of the floor by way of an addendum to the judgment, after the parish had had a further opportunity to discuss the matter with the Victorian Society, who had objected to all the tiles being covered.

In 1971 there had been a major reordering of the Grade II Victorian church, which included (inter alia) a re-orientation, so that the pews (made free-standing) faced north towards a dais on which the Holy Table was positioned; the nave was also carpeted. A new major reordering was proposed, to include returning to the original orientation (east-west), replacing the carpet with tiles and replacing the pews with upholstered chairs with metal frames. The Victorian Society objected to the proposed tiles and the upholstered chairs. The Chancellor decided that the proposals were reasonable and granted a faculty. In his judgment, the Chancellor makes some comments on the second of the 'Duffield' questions and also on the status of the CBC's guidance regarding chairs.

The Parochial Church Council ("PCC") wished to make improvements to a section of the Garden of Remembrance, where ashes were interred and memorial plaques laid. The works would include laying a new path, which would necessitate moving a few plaques. A lady objected to the moving of three family plaques and three rose bushes next to them. The works were temporarily put on hold. However, before the proposals were placed before the Chancellor, and before the objector had a chance to discuss the matter with the PCC, the plaques were removed and the roses were uprooted and disposed of. The objector had a meeting with the PCC and agreed to withdraw her objection, if the plaques were reinstated and the rose bushes replaced. The Chancellor agreed to grant a faculty for the works subject to conditions which included that the plaques were to be reinstated in positions to be agreed with the objector.

There was an application for the permanent removal of the Victorian pulpit, which had been moved from its original position under the authority of an Archdeacon's Licence for Temporary Reordering in 2015. The Chancellor was satisfied that the harm likely to be caused by the permanent removal of the pulpit was low, and he accordingly granted a faculty. However, he pointed out that the petitioners and the Archdeacon were in breach of the Faculty Rules, which require that, where a temporary licence has been granted, the Archdeacon has a duty to inform the parish concerned that the licence is due to expire and to require them to make an application for a faculty, if apppropriate; also an application for a confirmatory faculty must be made by the petitioners not less than two months before the expiry of the licence, which had not been the case here. This was therefore a salutory lesson to PCCs and Archdeacons to keep records of the expiry dates of temporary licences.