There was, in the late thirteenth century, an extensive system of ecclesiastical courts in England. In theory it was an ordered system, with archdeacon, bishop, archbishop, even pope, having a recognized sphere of authority and appellate jurisdiction. The reality was slightly more confused. Piecemeal growth of the numerous courts, disputes over jurisdiction, and resulting ad hoc compromises, had led to a more mottled picture. But it is roughly accurate to say that the bishop of every diocese had a Consistory court, presided over by a judge, called his official, and also a court of audience which exercised concurrent, and occasionally appellate, jurisdiction. Below this, each archdeacon had a court, and many lesser clerics, rural deans, monastic houses and cathedral canons, for example, also held courts of varying competence. Appeal from the lower courts lay to the bishop's court, and from there to the archbishop's court (in the Southern Province the Court of Arches in London, in the Northern the Provincial Court at York). From there, appeal could go to the Papal court. There was, in other words, a large number of courts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in medieval England. They were a normal and ubiquitous part of English life, as they were throughout Western Christendom.

One of the most significant parts of the law administered in these courts dealt with the matrimonial disputes of the laity.