Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T17:22:34.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re Holy Trinity and St Jude, Halifax

Leeds Consistory Court: Hill Ch, 30 November 2023[2023] ECC Lee 3Contractors’ obligation – faculty jurisdiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2024

David Willink
David Willink*
Affiliation:
Barrister, Lamb Chambers, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Following the grant of a faculty for the felling of particular trees in the churchyard, the petitioners’ contractor in error felled two trees not covered by the faculty. A petition was issued for a confirmatory faculty; the contractor was added as an additional party.

Information

Type
Case Note
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 2024, pp. 240 - 241
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2024

Following the grant of a faculty for the felling of particular trees in the churchyard, the petitioners’ contractor in error felled two trees not covered by the faculty. A petition was issued for a confirmatory faculty; the contractor was added as an additional party.

The contractor candidly acknowledged, in response to a question asked in directions, that it was not familiar with the faculty jurisdiction. The court said:

‘12. It cannot be restated often enough that those whose business includes work on church buildings or in churchyards of the Church of England must be familiar with the process and procedures of the faculty jurisdiction and have a firm grasp of the principle that unless a faculty (or other authorisation) has been obtained, any work done will be unlawful. As I observed in re All Saints, Buncton [2018] ECC Chi 1, at paragraph 80:

“… contractors should always, invariably and without fail obtain a copy of the relevant faculty (or other authorisation) before they commence any works …”

13. … Those who embark upon works on church property without reading and digesting the content of the relevant faculty do so at their own peril, and must live with the consequences, sometimes draconian, that can follow.’

The court accepted the contractor's contrition, and that the breach of the faculty was an accidental rather than deliberate disregard of the jurisdiction; and so did not impose a condition that the contractor not be approved for work in the diocese for a period of time. Nevertheless, the confirmatory faculty would bear the condition that the contractor be liable for compensatory planting; it was also liable for the costs of the proceedings.