No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
Being given a title is like being given a very broad question in an examination paper. At first sight it seems obvious what should be put forward by way of answer and on closer inspection one becomes less sure! So I tender my thoughts for inspection, conscious that some will feel there are gaps and perhaps others who will think I am stating too much of the obvious.
2 Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage. A Submission by the Church of England to Her Majesty's Government.
3 Re Emmanuel, Northwood (15th June 1998) 5 Ecc LJ 213, Cons Ct.Google Scholar
4 Re St Mary the Virgin, Langham (19th July 1996)(unreported), Cons Ct.Google Scholar
5 Re St Ann's, Kew (1997) Fam 12 at 17Google Scholar, (1976) 1 All ER 461 at 465, Cons Ct.
6 Nickalls v Briscoe [1892] P 269 at 283Google Scholar, Ct of Arches.
7 Policy Planning Guidance PPG 15, especially paras 3.3, 3.4 and 3.10.
8 Re St Luke the Evangelist, Maidstone [1995] Fam 1Google Scholar at 5, [1995] 1 All ER 321 at 325, Ct of Arches.
9 Re St Luke the Evangelist, Maidstone [1995] Fam 1 at 14Google Scholar, [1995] 1 All ER 321 at 333, Ct of Arches.
10 Re St Helen's, Bishopsgate (November 1993) 3 Ecc LJ 256, Cons Ct.Google Scholar
11 Re Emmanuel, Northwood (1998) 5 Ecc LJ 213.Google Scholar
12 Re St Luke the Evangelist, Maidstone [1995] Fam 1 at 9Google Scholar, [1995] 1 AH ER 321 at 328, Ct of Arches.
13 Making Changes to a Listed Church, paras 2.4 and 8.1.Google Scholar
14 See Peek v Trower (1881) 7 PD 21 at 27Google Scholar, and Re St Helen's, Bishopsgate (November 1993) 3 Ecc LJ 256, Cons Ct.Google Scholar
15 Re St John the Evangelist, Blackheath (26th September 1998) 5 Ecc LJ 217, Cons CtGoogle Scholar
16 Re St Mary's, Ealing (August 1999), Cons Ct.Google Scholar
17 Policy Planning Guidance PPG 15, para 3.4.
18 Re St Mary the Virgin, Sherborne [1996] Fam 63 at 68Google Scholar, [1996] 3 All ER 769 at 774, Ct of Arches.