Ecclesiastical Lay rector - lay impropriator's statutory liability for repairs to chancel - not contravening European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsAston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank and another: ChD (Ferris J): 28 March 2000

The defendants were lay impropriators of rectorial land by virtue of one of the fields on their farm having formed part of an inclosure award made to a predecessor in title in lieu of tithe in the eighteenth century.

The claimants served a notice on the defendants pursuant to the Chancel Repairs Act 1932 ordering them to repair the chancel of the parish church, and subsequently commenced proceedings in the county court for the recovery of the sum of 95,260.84 required to put the chancel in proper repair.

The defendants contended, among other things, that the Act of 1932 contravened the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) (Cmd 8969) (ECHR).

Master Bragge ordered that question to be tried as apreliminary issue.Sarah Asplin (instructed by Rotherham & Co, Coventry) for the claimants.Ian Partridge (instructed by Eddowes Perry & Osbourne, Sutton Coldfield) for thedefendants.Held, answering the question in the negative, that since the Human Rights Act 1998 was not yet in force the court could only have recourse to the ECHR where the law was uncertain; that, while the present law was undoubtedly capable of operating unfairly, it was settled law that a lay impropriator in receipt of part of the rents and profits of the rectory was liable for repairs to the chancel even where he had no notice of that liability at the time he acquired the land, subject only to a right of contribution from other lay impropriators; that in any event the liability for repairs contravention contravened neither the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and property guaranteed by art.1 of Protocol No.

1 to the ECHR (1952), nor the protection from discrimination guaranteed by art.14 of the ECHR nor the right to religious freedom under art.9; and that, accordingly, even if there had been some doubt as to the scope of the supposed rule under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932, it would not be necessary to modify that rule in order to avoid a breach of the ECHR.