Local Free Church Trustees act over Broadford property

In spite of various approaches to the Free Church Continuing (FCC) both before and after their action against us in the Court of Session, they have not returned any of our congregations’ property which they occupied in 2000. This is despite Lady Paton’s finding, which clearly demonstrated they were not the Free Church of Scotland, and the fact that the title deeds of the properties which they occupy make clear that such property is held on behalf of congregations of the Free Church of Scotland.

In seeking to break this impasse, the Free Church congregational trustees of Strath in Skye, on discovering that the FCC minister had retired and vacated the Free Church Manse in Strath (Broadford) and that work was being carried out on the property with the intention of someone other than a minister occupying it, decided the time was opportune to apply to the Court for Declarator that the property in fact belongs to the Free Church of Scotland.

The Court granted an Interim Interdict (which prevents any unauthorised entry to the manse until the case is decided). However, the small (single figures) FCC congregation are being allowed access to a section of the property for Sunday worship.

This decision of the local trustees to secure the property legally has been the subject of criticism. However, several points should be kept in mind.

First, trustees are duty bound (and under trust and charity legislation, legally bound) to protect trust property. Of course, the Free Church of Scotland and the FCC are registered as different charities and, therefore, the Free Church is obliged to make use of its assets in line with its own charitable objectives.

Second, it is thought that our major criticism of the FCC was that they were taking us to Court and, therefore, it is hypocritical for us now to go to Court. While some may have expressed those views, the Legal Group of the Church have never held that position, simply because that is not the Free Church position. If it were, why did the Free Church in 1900-1904 claim its property through the Courts (which action secured our property for us)? The principle that the Free Church holds is that it is wrong to take a spiritual matter (such as church discipline) before the civil Courts. This is basically what the FCC were doing in their case. We have always recognised the jurisdiction of the civil Courts with regard to property.

Third, it is believed that the Free Church gave an absolute undertaking to the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC) meeting in Pretoria that if the FCC dropped their appeal against Lady Paton, we would not take them to Court. This is not the case. What was said (in debate—not as a written statement from our General Assembly) was in the context of what had been offered in mediation. The clear implication was that if the FCC dropped their appeal, they were giving up their claim to be the Free Church of Scotland and would then quickly enter into talks to resolve the use of Free Church of Scotland property in an amicable manner. This has not happened, because the only approach that the FCC have made was based on the principle that current occupancy will be accepted as the appropriate occupancy. Also, it was clearly stated at the ICRC that no undertaking could be given on behalf of local trustees, who have an obligation to secure trust property. In addition, the decision of the ICRC not to grant membership to the FCC was based on the fact they had taken us to Court on a matter of discipline.

It should also be stressed that the Court action is not for eviction but for declarator. The property is empty—there is no one to evict.

It is to be hoped that this action will resolve matters (at least as far as Broadford is concerned), but also that FCC congregations in other places will seek without delay to discuss matters with the local Free Church of Scotland trustees and Deacons’ Courts to resolve this long running dispute.

Alex MacDonald
Media Officer