The incumbent and churchwardens, supported by the parochial church council, sought the sale of a painting by Benjamin West, entitled Devout men taking the body of St Stephen. The application was not opposed by English Heritage or the local planning authority but was opposed by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, the Church Buildings Council (CBC) and the Georgian Society.

St Stephen, Walbrook, is a Wren church built in the 1670s. The painting was introduced to the church by the absentee rector in or about 1776. It was originally installed above the altar, which required the bricking up of the east window. Later the picture was moved to the north wall and the east window, an important part of the Wren design, was unbricked and re-glazed. The church was significantly re-ordered in 1978–1987, during which time the picture was placed in storage by the then incumbent, without a faculty. The parish argued that the painting did not fit with the current aesthetic of the building and sought to realise its value to fund ongoing repairs.

The chancellor heard the evidence of several expert witnesses, including architects, an architectural historian, a conservationist and art historians. He concluded that the West picture was at odds with the architectural glory of the building. The painting had been introduced without a faculty or at the very least irregularly without vestry consent. Had a faculty been sought no chancellor would have granted it as the picture and original proposals for its display were so clearly at odds with the style, integrity, appearance and structure of the Wren church. The removal of the painting to the north wall compromised the original intention of the picture, yet even on the north wall it remained inconsistent with the style and integrity of the building. However, notwithstanding the unlawful introduction of the painting its removal during the re-ordering was also unlawful. Although there was a petition for sale at that stage, it had been withdrawn, and the incumbent at the time apparently sent the picture to Sotheby's on his own initiative. The parish had since paid the costs of storage. The CBC initially sought a Restoration order under section 13 of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991. However, that remedy was time-barred, as over six years had elapsed and the picture's removal had not been concealed – being known to the archdeacon and chancellor among others. There was therefore no power to order the restoration of the picture. It was found that the reintroduction, whether over the altar or the north wall, would be detrimental to the same degree as the original introduction. The balance of artistic evidence matched the petitioners’ desire to get rid of a painting illegally introduced to the detriment of church.

Considering evidence about the financial necessity of sale, the chancellor found that the church's financial resources were limited. Many City businesses were foreign-owned and not keen to support churches. Without the sale of the painting the church was financially unviable. Additional repair works to the roof, bells, vestry and for disabled access would cost £420,000; a new boiler and smoke alarms were also needed. Sale to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, where West's work was better known, was possible and the picture would be better kept and curated and seen by a wider public. Demonstrable financial need justified the disposal. However, the parish was not to keep all the money but should give some to the wider church in addition to funding the parish's own repairs.

The CBC sought leave to appeal from the chancellor. While expressing concerns about the objectivity of the Council, the chancellor refused leave in a decision dated 7 October 2013, stating that the decision was fact-specific and did not set the precedent claimed by the Council. [Catherine Shelley]