The petitioners sought a faculty for the sale of a late seventeenth-century Netherlandish painting. The painting had been given to the church in the 1920s or 1930s and had hung in the vestry until 1957, when it was removed to a museum. Its estimated value was £25,000 to £35,000. The PCC, whose annual income and expenditure were each in the region of £15,000, was in debt in the sum of £20,000 as a result of recent works that included the provision of a kitchen and a disabled-access lavatory. The petitioners put their case on the basis that the painting was redundant, ‘being of no practical use to the church’. The chancellor applied the principles stated by the Court of Arches in Re St Peter, Draycott [2009] Fam 93. In concluding that he should exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioners, the chancellor held that no useful purpose was served by the church continuing to own the painting, which should be treated as if it were redundant; it had no significant connection with the church; it had no significance in terms of the worship of the church nor any connection with the local community; the financial resources of the church were extremely limited and there was a ‘significant financial need’ to discharge the PCC's indebtedness. The chancellor went on to hold that, in addition, there was a ‘financial emergency’, given that the church's debts were ‘highly unlikely to be discharged in the immediate future in the absence of the sale of the painting’. A faculty was granted and the proceeds of sale were to be applied to the church repairs account. [Alexander McGregor]