The bishop refused to permit Mr Sisneros to enter into a period of discernment to test his calling to be ordained as a priest in the Anglican Church on the grounds that Mr Sisneros was in a long-term homosexual relationship and therefore could not be ordained as he was not either single and celibate or in a heterosexual marriage. The plaintiff society challenged the bishop's decision as discriminatory on grounds of marital status or sexual orientation. Section 39 of the Human Rights Act 1993 contained an exemption from the prohibition on discrimination where ‘the authorisation or qualification is needed for … a calling for the purposes of an organised religion and is limited to one sex or to persons of that religious belief so as to comply with the doctrines or rules or established customs of that religion’.

The Tribunal held that the separation of Church and state must be maintained such that it could not determine what was at heart an ecclesiastical dispute. It was accepted by the plaintiff that the Church's rules and doctrine had been properly applied by the bishop. Nevertheless, citing examples of the ordination of homosexual priests in committed monogamous relationships and the renewal of their licences by other Anglican bishops, it argued that there was an inconsistency between Anglican rules and doctrine and Anglican religious belief. The Tribunal rejected this evidence as irrelevant, finding that such examples did not demonstrate a change in the doctrine of the Church.

The Tribunal considered both the language and the purpose of section 39. It held that the purpose behind the section was to preserve the institutional autonomy of organised religions in relation to their decisions concerning the appointment of clergy and ministers. On that basis the plaintiff's interpretation of section 39 could not be maintained. The decision of the bishop fell within that exemption and as such was not unlawful. [RA]