The petitioners sought a faculty for the introduction of a new altar frontal into the church of St Nicholas, Leicester. The proposed design was the Progress Pride flag with a white cross applied to it. The Registry received nine objections to the petition.

Objections to a petition may be made by an ‘interested person’ (rule 10.2 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015). Rule 10.1 defines an ‘interested person’ as including:

Given that those objecting did not fall within any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (g), the court had to consider whether any had a ‘sufficient interest in the subject matter of the petition’ pursuant to sub-paragraph (h), ‘sufficient interest’ being undefined. The court considered that the definition of ‘directly affected’, set out in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, was helpful, the Supreme Court having previously held that the test of ‘being directly affected’ was in substance the same as the test of ‘having sufficient interest’. The test distinguished between a ‘busybody’, interfering in something with which they had no legitimate concern, and an individual affected by or having a reasonable concern in the matter to which the application related.

Held: two of the objectors had sufficient interest in the petition. They were members of clergy (one within the Leicester diocese and the other a member of General Synod). Both had identified liturgical or doctrinal issues as part of their objection as well as concerns about the effect that a decision to allow the petition would have on other members of the Church. The court held there was therefore a general public interest in these matters being considered and both were well placed to make such arguments. The status of a third had been misunderstood; he was not, in fact, a regular worshipper at the church (which would have constituted ‘sufficient interest’, whether or not he was on the electoral roll). The court invited further submissions from him. [Naomi Gyane]