“Long overdue report” lamented by Archbishop, a non-canonical consecration, and Tory leadership contender’s threats to leave the EHRC…
…all of which might have filled out a quiet week of news, but none were strictly within the remit of L&RUK.
But was the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act legal?
John Lyon’s Charity has launched judicial review proceedings against the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, seeking a High Court declaration that the Act violates the right to property under the Human Rights Act 1998 and A1P1 ECHR. The issue is the exclusion of so-called “marriage value”, which is the additional value gained when the landlord’s and leaseholder’s separate interests are ‘married’ into a single ownership.
The relevant provisions of the Act have not yet been brought into effect; however, John Lyon’s contends that exclusion of marriage value creates a vast redistribution of wealth from freeholders to leaseholders and that it will lose about £1.4M annually. The change has also been opposed by the Church of England: speaking in the Lords in April, the Bishop of Manchester said that the bill as drafted would take money presently used for charitable purposes and give it to the wealthy – “a reverse Robin Hood”.
Is “English nationalism” a protected belief?
The summary of Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2024] EAT 141 is reproduced below, and the full judgment is here. We hope to post a more detailed analysis later in the week.
“The claimant alleged that his assignment with an NHS Trust had been terminated because of his belief in English nationalism. He claimed that this was belief discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 (“the EqA”). At a preliminary hearing, the employment tribunal held that the claimant’s belief was not protected by the EqA. The claimant appealed against this decision. The appeal is dismissed. The claimant’s views are of an English nationalism which believes that there is no place in British society for Muslims or Islam itself.
Among the claimant’s views are that Muslims should be forcibly deported from the United Kingdom. These views are not capable of protection under the European Convention of Human Rights … as they would offend Article 17 which provides that ‘Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.’ The claimant is not prevented from holding his views, but he is outside of the right to complain that he has been discriminated against in relation to those beliefs in the circumstances covered by the EqA”.
And who is my neighbour?
Although CBC guidance on the floodlighting of churches has been available since 2012, relatively few consistory determinations have addressed the external lighting of churches; early concerns in this area focussed on the disruption of bats, and more recently the associated carbon footprint has become a feature. These, and the additional issue of “neighbourliness” were considered in Re All Saints Chelsworth [2024] ECC SEI 4. The churchwardens and PCC treasurer sought to move one of the floodlights installed with Faculty permission in 2011 from the South East to the North West corner of the church and to increase the floodlighting from 25 hours a year to approximately 150 hours a year.
Gau Ch concluded his determination [emphasis added]:
“[27]. Were this petition to be unopposed it would have passed the without any difficulty. The issue here is now one of neighbourliness. The petitioners seek to extend the time of floodlighting the church but can give me no substantive reason for doing so, particularly in the light of the objections from those who are to be most directly affected by it. I accept the objectors’ submissions in relation to the increase in light pollution, particularly to the house occupied by the Cullens. I have seen no justification for the alteration of the Faculty of sufficient weight to justify altering the current state of affairs.
[28]. The Faculty prayed for is, accordingly, refused. The present Faculty is still extant. Any further breaches of the timings as agreed by that Faculty are to be referred to me.”.
Quick links
- Church of England: Cathedral Statistics 2023: information about worship and other activities that took place in Church of England cathedrals from 1st January to 31st December 2023.
- The Church Mouse: Why do priests in the Church of England wear robes?: on the canons on vesture.
- Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO): Serious concerns about the APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition.
Please note that we are aware of the error message which has been appearing at the top of recent posts (i.e. those viewed on laptops, but not on iPhones or tablets). Jetpack now appears to have fixed the problem. Frank & David.