The petitioners sought a faculty for re-ordering, which included moving the font from its place at the back of the nave to the east end of the north aisle. The reason for the proposed change was not liturgical, but for purposes of space allocation. The court brought to the petitioners’ attention that the proposal in relation to the font did not comply with Canon F1, and was therefore contrary to law; but the petitioners neither reconsidered nor strengthened the petition, and asked that it be disposed of on the papers.

Canon F1 provides:

1. 1. In every church and chapel where baptism is to be administered, there shall be provided a decent font with a cover for the keeping clean thereof.

2. 2. The font shall stand as near to the principal entrance as conveniently may be, except there be a custom to the contrary or the Ordinary otherwise direct; and shall be set in as spacious and well-ordered surroundings as possible. […]

The petitioners identified no ‘custom to the contrary’ at their church. The Ordinary, for these purposes, was the court itself; and as a matter of the ordinary principles of law and of judicial practice, the court would not direct a departure from the law save for good reason, based on precedent if available.

The court discussed the nature of ecclesiastical law as part of the law of England, and of the nature of the Canons within that body of law, noting that while the Canons did not have general force except insofar as they reflect existing provisions of the law, they undoubtedly bound the clergy in ecclesiastical matters, and they probably also bound others who hold church office. In any event, liturgical preference or convenience did not override them or any other part of the law. The law was the starting point for any decision-making, and would be dispensed with only if there is sufficiently good reason for doing so. It was not an optional add-on, or extra consideration, to be taken into account, if at all, at the end of the exercise.

The court considered the history of the provisions concerning the placement of the font. The present preference for baptism within public worship was not new, and could not of itself justify a change in the position of the font. The court also considered the Guidance on Baptism and Fonts issued by the House of Bishops in 1992, and the case of Re Holy Trinity, Wandsworth (2012) 15 Ecc LJ 125, which contained an instructive summary and analysis of previous judgments and the House of Bishops Guidance.

The court held:

While expressing no concluded view on the other aspects of the proposed re-ordering, the proposals had been presented to be considered as a whole. The petition was dismissed.