header-logo header-logo

16 July 2025
Issue: 8125 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Conveyancing
printer mail-detail

Putting an end to chancel searches?

The Law Commission has proposed reforms to the rules of chancel repair obligations—a duty on homeowners which adds millions to conveyancing costs each year

The responsibility to repair the chancel (eastern end) of a parish church passed from parish priests to lay landowners after the Reformation and dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. All landowners, including of commercial and agricultural property, are potentially affected. Moreover, the liability is personal—not limited to the property value—and several, which means any one landowner can be pursued for the full amount.

Conveyancing searches for chancel repair liability typically add £30-£40 per transaction, which cumulatively add millions of pounds to property sales each year.

The potential risks of chancel repair liability came to the fore in a high-profile case in the 1990s, when a couple, Andrew and Gail Wallbank, were landed with a bill for nearly £187,000 in chancel repairs followed by £250,000 in legal costs, in Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37. Consequently, the Land Registration Act 2002 removed the liability as an ‘overriding interest’ from October 2013. However, its legal status remained unclear.

The Law Commission therefore proposes amending the 2002 Act to clarify that purchasers of registered land can only be bound by the liability if it appears on the property title.

Sir Peter Fraser, chair of the Law Commission, said: ‘These proposals aim to deliver the certainty that was intended when the land registration rules changed in 2013.

‘By clarifying the law, the aim is to reduce unnecessary costs for those who buy land such as homebuyers, while ensuring the rules work as Parliament expected.’

The consultation also examines the scope of liability in Wales, which is subject to the Welsh Church Act 1914.

The consultation, ‘Chancel repair liability and registration’, opened this week and ends on 15 November.

Issue: 8125 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Conveyancing
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll