The House of Lords has ordered a North Wales couple to pay a £96,000 bill for repairs to an ancient church. The decision is one that leaves them facing possible financial ruin.
The court held that the Human Rights Act 1998 could not spare Andrew Wallbank, and his wife Gail, from their liability for repairs as “lay rectors” of the Church of St John the Baptist in the parish of Aston Cantlow, Warwickshire, under a system dating back to medieval times.
The parochial church council for Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley claimed that the Wallbanks were responsible for the financing of repair works on the basis that their property, Glebe Farm, was classified as “rectorial property”. In March 2000, the High Court ruled that the Wallbanks were liable for the repairs by virtue of the provisions of the little-heard-of Chancel Repairs Act 1932.
The Wallbanks appealed, claiming that the imposition of liability breached human rights legislation, which stated that “every natural or legal person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” and that “no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law and by general principles of international law”.
The Court of Appeal agreed, and, in May 2001, overturned the High Court decision.
The House of Lords has now ruled that the Human Rights Act cannot apply because the church council was neither a core, nor a hybrid, public authority. However, the court did acknowledge that the 1932 Act was “open to criticism on various grounds”.
Lord Nicholls said: “This case concerns one of the more arcane and unsatisfactory areas of property law: the liability of a lay rector for the repair of the chancel of a church. The very language is redolent of a society long disappeared.
“The anachronistic, even capricious, nature of this ancient liability was recognised some years ago by the Law Commission. The commission said this ‘relic of the past’ is ‘no longer acceptable’. The commission recommended its phased abolition.
“The need for reform has not lessened with the passage of time.”
Lord Hope said: “Unsatisfactory though the system may appear to be, there is no obvious alternative. It is not open to us to resolve these problems judicially. All one can say is that the Human Rights Act 1998 does not provide a vehicle for doing so.”
He added that it was difficult to see how to replace the 1932 Act, since an alternative outcome would potentially have a devastating effect financially upon the Church of England.
The result could leave hundreds of property owners throughout the country facing the threat of being legally forced to pay for church repairs. A Law Commission report into reform found that, nationwide, there are around 5,200 chancels that carry a chancel repair liability.
Porochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank and another House of Lords (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) 26 June 2003.
References: PLS News 26/06/03
