In 2010 the chancellor gave judgment on a petition for the re-ordering of the church. Major aspects of the proposals were permitted and a faculty was issued but certain aspects, including the proposed removal of the pulpit, were refused. There was no appeal against that judgment. In 2012 the pulpit was removed from the church and placed in storage. In 2015 the petitioners applied for the 2010 faculty to be amended to permit the permanent removal of the pulpit. The chancellor stated that it was of central importance that the faculty jurisdiction operated in a climate in which the rule of law was respected and applied. No-one was above the law and the outcome of legal proceedings was to be recognised and respected. It was an absolutely basic tenet of church law that a faculty was needed before any alteration, addition, removal or repair took place to the fabric, ornaments or furniture of a church under Canon F 13. The court was entitled to assume that ministers and churchwardens were aware of this basic requirement. In the present case they knew that a faculty was required for the removal of the pulpit and that it had been refused. The chancellor held that the pulpit had been removed without lawful authority; that the removal was undertaken deliberately in contravention of the terms of the 2010 faculty; and that those responsible chose not to disclose their actions to those in authority and allowed a number of years to pass before presenting the present application, which in part involved seeking to rely on what had, by unlawful means, become the status quo. In the light of those findings, the petitioners were not to be afforded any benefit or advantage that had been gained as a result of their unlawful actions. Nothing had materially changed since the petition had, so far as the pulpit was concerned, been determined against the petitioners in 2010 and it would be perverse and legally impermissible for the court simply to change its decision because it had been asked the question a second time. The application was refused. The chancellor expressed the hope that the pulpit would now be returned to the church without the need for further proceedings but, if necessary, the making of a restoration order would be considered in due course. The question of costs was reserved. [Alexander McGregor]