The petitioners sought a faculty authorising them to sell, by auction at Bonhams, a painting entitled ‘The Good Shepherd’ by William Dyce (‘the painting’). They contended that the use of the church’s scarce financial resources to preserve a work of art would undermine key missional objectives and add a burden of cost which would hasten the Church’s closure. The petition was formally unopposed. The Church Buildings Council (‘CBC’) did not support the petition because it felt that a strong case for sale had not been made.

The Chancellor granted the faculty subject to the conditions that the painting should be sold by auction or private treaty, by Bonhams, at the best price reasonably obtainable. Sale was to occur within 12 months or within such further period as permitted upon application.

The modern law on disposal of ‘church treasures’ is to be found in Re St Lawrence, Oakley with Wootton St Lawrence [2015] Fam 27 and CBC Guidance. The following points are of particular relevance: (i) church treasures should only be removed in the most exceptional circumstances. They are not ‘ordinary assets’; (ii) when considering the disposal of such treasures, it is necessary to adopt a sequential approach, considering first whether disposal by loan is appropriate and can be achieved, and if that is not possible, to consider a disposal by ‘limited’ sale to a museum, art gallery, or other institution. If the second option is also not possible, consideration of sale to whoever will pay the highest price is appropriate. The interests of ‘public visibility’ will normally prevail where the consistory court is considering a proposal for the sale into private hands of an article of local or national interest; (iii) the starting point is that there is a strong presumption against sale. In order for the petitioners to succeed they must evidence factors of such weight that the grounds for sale are sufficiently compelling to outweigh that presumption; (iv) financial need falling short of an emergency will seldom be enough on its own to outweigh the strong presumption against sale; (v) separation (where an item has been housed for a considerable amount of time in some place other than the church) will normally attract little weight as a reason for disposal by sale, particularly where an item has a significant past connection with a church or parish and its history; and (vi) insurance and security are matters of concern, but there is no legal requirement to insure for full market value and a determined thief may always succeed despite the reasonable measures put in place by a parish. Parishes should not seek to dispose of valuable articles merely because they cannot afford full insurance cover.

In this case, the painting’s relocation was a practical necessity because it had begun to suffer harm due to its presence in the (occasionally damp) church. Disposal by loan and disposal by limited sale had been properly and reasonably explored, but with little success. Disposal by sale was therefore appropriate.