The Free Church of England Central Trust v Revd Steven Hanna & Ors

Property held under charitable trusts remains governed by the trust instruments. Registration of a separate congregational charity and adoption of its constitution do not transfer trust property or alter its purposes without clear words and authority. A central trustee with management powers under the relevant instruments is a charity trustee, not merely a custodian trustee. Where a constitution requires advancement of the Christian faith “in union with” a named denomination and according to its Principles and practices, those are cumulative requirements. “In union with” requires membership of, association with and subjection to the denomination’s formal structures; adherence to its principles alone is insufficient.

The claimant, the central trustee of the Free Church of England, sought declarations concerning the trusts governing church, hall and manse properties used by Christ Church Exeter after the congregation left the denomination for a second time. The defendants included the local minister, trustees and other members of the congregation. The court was asked to determine the terms on which the properties were held, whether the claimant was a charity or custodian trustee, the effect of registration of Charity 1138246 and adoption of its 2010 Constitution, and the meaning of “in union with” in its objects clause. The issue concerning 140 Pinhoe Road was reserved for consequential consideration.

Disposition. The court determined the principal issues, but reserved 140 Pinhoe Road and the precise consequential declarations.

1. The Original Church Site was held under the 1911 Conveyance, the 1908 Deed and the 1962 Scheme. The expression “to permit” imposed a requirement, not merely a power. The claimant therefore held the site for the religious charitable purposes of the Free Church of England and to enable its use by the separate Christ Church charity under the name Christ Church (Free Church of England).
2. On the missing 1962 declaration of trust, the court applied the principle discussed in Re Fassam [2025] EWHC 2128 (Ch). Sufficient secondary evidence can justify declaring the terms on which property has been held since a lost instrument was made. The Laburnum Cottage Site was held for the charitable purposes of the Free Church of England. The Schoolrooms Site was held in connexion with Christ Church Free Church of England Church in Exeter.
3. The claimant was the charity trustee, rather than merely a custodian trustee, of the Original Church Site, Laburnum Cottage Site and Schoolrooms Site. The wide management powers in the trust instruments, including powers to demolish and rebuild, were inconsistent with a custodian-only role. This accorded with the distinction explained in Re Brooke Bond & Co Ltd’s Trust Deed [1963] Ch 357 and with the definition in Charities Act 2011, section 177.
4. Registration of Charity 1138246 and adoption of the 2010 Constitution did not alter the trusts or transfer the properties to the local charity trustees. The Constitution dealt with congregational charitable assets and expressly preserved property subject to separate trusts.
5. Applying the objective and iterative approach to construction stated in A v C [2026] 2 AC 846, the words “in union with” and “according to” imposed separate cumulative requirements. The charity had to operate as part of the quasi-corporate Free Church of England and in accordance with its Principles, practices and formal regulations. A subjective assessment of the moral conduct of the denomination’s leaders could not justify unilateral withdrawal from its structures.
6. The court discussed Shergill v Khaira [2015] AC 359 and General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun [1904] AC 515, but no issue requiring determination of fundamental doctrine or schism arose for decision at this stage.

not stated in the judgment.