A lay rector could be liable for the physical upkeep of the chancel of the church by virtue of the Act, and such liability was not removed by the new Human Rights Act. Such liability could exist whether or not he had notice of the liability when purchasing land which had been part of the rectorship, and whether or not he was a lay or spiritual rector. Such an imposition may well not be capable of being set aside under the new Act when it comes into force. The law relating to chancel repairs did not involve a deprivation of possessions. The liability to repair the chancel is one of the incidents of ownership of land allotted under the inclosure award in lieu of tithe or other rectorial property. It is an unusual incident not amounting to a charge on the land, not limited to the value of the land and in imposing a personal liability on the owner of the land, but it cannot be distinguished from the liability which would attach to the owner of land which is purchased subject to a mortgage, restrictive covenant or other incumbrance created by a predecessor in title.
Judges:
Ferris J
Citations:
Gazette 28-Apr-2000, Times 30-Mar-2000
Statutes:
Chancel Repairs Act 1932 5, Human Rights Act 1998 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Dean and Chapter of Ripon Cathedral ChD 1945
Uthwatt J said: ‘The law is one, but jurisdiction as to its enforcement is divided between the ecclesiastical courts and the temporal courts’ . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wallbank and Wallbank v Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesley, Warwickshire CA 17-May-2001
The defendant owned land subject to an inclosure award of 1743, in exchange for other land which had made the owner a lay rector. The land was subject to the burden of a duty to maintain the chancel of the parish church. The defendants had been . .
At first instance – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Land, Ecclesiastical
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84588