Chancel Repair Liability

October 23, 2025

Law Commission Consultation: Chancel Repair Liability

In July 2025 the Law Commission launched a public consultation seeking to end uncertainty over chancel repair liability (CRL) in England and Wales. CRL is an ancient property obligation requiring certain landowners to pay for repairs to their parish church’s chancel. The Commission’s proposals would clarify that this liability only affects buyers of registered land if it is registered on the title. For decades homebuyers have incurred modest costs (£30–£40 per transaction) on CRL searches and insurance, amounting to millions of pounds each year, even though most sales never give rise to any claim. As the Commission observes, high-profile cases like the Wallbanks’ illustrate the issue: the couple faced nearly £187,000 in repair costs plus £250,000 in legal fees over a chancel liability. The consultation aims to ensure that land registration rules work “as Parliament expected” by making any surviving CRL transparent to purchasers.

Background: Chancel Repair Liability

Chancel repair liability is a feudal-era burden on land in some parishes. Historically, the rector of a parish had to repair the church chancel (the area around the altar), funded by tithes and glebe land. After the Reformation, lay owners of former rectorial lands (called lay rectors) inherited the chancel-repair obligation. Today, about 5,200 pre-Reformation parishes have such liabilities. Under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932, parochial church councils (PCCs) can enforce CRL to demand funds from owners of land that once supported the church. In practice CRL is rarely enforced, but when it is asserted it can impose huge costs on landowners. The Law Commission notes that CRL has “its origins in the feudal system” and, although seldom invoked, can nonetheless result in liabilities that are “huge”. Crucially, CRL is a several obligation: if a rectorial estate has been split among owners, any one of them can be pursued for the full repair bill.

Modern law sought to limit CRL. The Land Registration Act 2002 was intended to remove CRL as a hidden burden on registered land: except where noted on the title, the liability was not to bind purchasers after 13 October 2013. In practice, however, CRL’s status remained uncertain. After the House of Lords’ decision in Aston Cantlow (PCC) v Wallbank (see below), Parliament made a transitional provision in 2003 preserving CRL for ten years even without registration. After that ten-year period (October 2003–2013), the liability was supposed to bind only if a notice had been entered on the land register. Nonetheless, questions lingered about whether unregistered land or unprotected estates remained subject to CRL. As the Commission explains, many buyers continued to spend millions on CRL insurance because the law still appeared unclear.

The Wallbank Case

The Wallbank litigation, culminating in the House of Lords in 2003, brought CRL sharply into the public eye. Adrian and Gail Wallbank were married in Aston Cantlow, Warwickshire, and inherited Glebe Farm (a former rectory) from Gail’s father in 1990. Unknown to them at the time, their title included a “chancel repair liability” clause. The church had granted the farm land in exchange for lay rectors paying for certain repairs. In 1990 the PCC for Aston Cantlow demanded about £230,000 for repairs to St John the Baptist church. The Wallbanks said they had been told CRL was a “dead law”, but they found themselves “with no choice but to sell” their farmhouse when faced with the bill.

The couple fought in the courts for over a decade. The case began in the Stratford-upon-Avon County Court, where District Judge Callaghan found the Wallbanks liable as lay rectors under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932 and entered judgment for the Parochial Church Council for the full cost of the repairs. The decision was upheld on appeal to His Honour Judge Holden in the Birmingham County Court, who confirmed that the liability remained enforceable as a private law obligation attached to the ownership of Glebe Farm. It was only when the Wallbanks advanced arguments under the newly enacted Human Rights Act 1998 that the dispute moved beyond the confines of property law, leading to the later appeals on constitutional grounds.

Initially (in the 2002 Court of Appeal decision), they succeeded: the Court of Appeal held that enforcing the liability through the church council’s statutory power amounted to unlawful state action under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The PCC was treated as a “core” public authority whose act (demanding CRL under the 1932 Act) violated the Wallbanks’ Convention rights.

However, in June 2003 the House of Lords unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal. The Lords held that the PCC’s enforcement of CRL was not state action under the HRA, so it was lawful to press the liability. In effect, the church council was not a public authority with respect to the private function of claiming a contractual obligation. As a result, CRL remained enforceable against the Wallbanks. Lord Nicholls (in a dissent on one technical point) emphasised that CRL “attaches” to the land: he described it as “a burdensome incident attached to the ownership of certain pieces of land”. Lord Hope likewise noted that enforcement was an incident of “the property right which is now vested jointly in Mr and Mrs Wallbank”.

Ultimately the Wallbanks lost. By December 2003 their appeal failed and the House of Lords found in favour of the PCC. Including interest and costs, the couple faced well over £350,000 in liabilities (approximately £187,000 plus around £250,000 in legal fees). They were forced to sell their farm to satisfy the judgment. The case was widely reported as a modern example of an ancient law producing ruinous consequences. It confirmed that CRL, though medieval in origin, still binds landowners under English law.

Law Commission 2025 Consultation

In light of ongoing uncertainty, the Law Commission’s July 2025 consultation proposes to amend the law to enshrine what was long understood to be the 2013 position. The consultation paper suggests specific changes to the Land Registration Act 2002 to make clear that chancel repair liability only binds new owners if it is registered on the title. In summary, the key proposals are:

• Registered land: To clarify that CRL is treated as an interest affecting a registered title, with a corresponding notice registerable against the estate. In other words, after reform a purchaser of registered land would only be bound by CRL if a notice of it appears on the land register. By contrast, unnotified liabilities would no longer bind a buyer.
• Unregistered land: To provide for a caution against first registration relating to CRL. If a property is first registered and no entry of the liability is made at that time, the CRL would cease to bind the newly registered owner. This change aims to protect buyers of formerly unregistered land once they enter the register.

These proposals effectively implement the assumption that by 13 October 2013 only noted CRLs should survive. Draft legislation is included in the consultation. The paper also discusses how the Welsh Church Act 1914 may have abolished or limited CRL in Wales, and invites views on whether separate provision is needed for Welsh land.

The consultation runs until 15 November 2025. After the deadline the Commission will consider responses and publish a final report with recommendations in 2026. If adopted, the reforms would validate the long-held view that homebuyers of registered property need not fear unknown CRL. The Commission hopes that by confirming the intended effect of the 2002 Act, the proposals will “deliver the certainty that was intended” and spare purchasers from unnecessary searches and insurance premiums.

Conveyancing Negligence and Chancel Repair Liability

Although the Law Commission’s proposals aim to make chancel repair liability transparent, conveyancing practitioners must still exercise proper care until the law is changed. Claims for conveyancing negligence can arise where a solicitor fails to identify or advise upon the risk of CRL during a property purchase. Typical examples include neglecting to conduct a chancel repair search, misunderstanding the results, or failing to recommend appropriate indemnity insurance.

Even if a liability is rarely enforced, the solicitor’s duty is to warn the client of potential exposure so that informed decisions can be made. Where clients later face unexpected financial demands, they may be able to recover losses from their conveyancer if that duty of care was breached. The reform proposals therefore do not eliminate negligence risk; rather, they underline the continuing importance of clear advice and careful title investigation.

If the Law Commission’s recommendations are enacted with retrospective effect to 13 October 2013, the legal consequences will depend on timing. For existing or historic negligence claims, the solicitor’s duty and potential breach will still be judged by the standard of care applicable at the date of the transaction. The fact that the law may later declare an unregistered liability unenforceable does not absolve a solicitor who failed to advise prudently when the law was unclear. However, claimants could face greater difficulty proving financial loss. If the reform confirms that an unregistered CRL has not bound purchasers since 2013, a defendant may argue that any alleged loss, such as paying for insurance or facing an unenforceable risk, was not truly caused by negligence.

For future transactions, the reform would narrow the solicitor’s duty considerably. Conveyancers would only need to check whether a CRL notice appears on the land register and to advise accordingly. There would be no continuing obligation to commission separate chancel repair searches or arrange insurance unless a liability is actually recorded on title.

In summary, the retrospective clarification is intended to confirm, rather than change, the law. It will likely reduce the scope for negligence exposure going forward, though careful advice remains essential for transactions that occurred before the reforms take effect. For further information about professional duties in conveyancing transactions, see our professional negligence solicitors page.

Conclusion

The Wallbank litigation underscored how an archaic ecclesiastical burden can dramatically affect modern landowners. It affirmed that chancel repair liability remains a valid charge on certain estates, enforceable under English law. The Law Commission’s 2025 consultation reflects this history and seeks to ensure that such liabilities are only enforceable in a transparent, registered way. In other words, it aims to align legal practice with Parliament’s original intent: after 2013, a buyer of land will only face chancel repair liability if that liability is plainly noted on the title. If implemented, the reforms will provide the certainty that homebuyers have long sought and make clear the extent of this unusual historic obligation in English property law.

Further Reading

• Professional Negligence Solicitors
• Conveyancing Negligence