Thus I am intrigued by the following part of Judge Chisholm's judgement re the cathedral and its "site-specific" situation:
" When insurance money is received by a trustee it should be held upon trusts corresponding as nearly as may be with the trusts affecting the property in respect of which it was payable: s 25(3)(b) of the Trustee Act.52 Under s 25(4) any such money may be applied by the trustee in rebuilding, reinstating, replacing or repairing the property lost or damaged. Given the site-specific purpose of the Cathedral trust, it is difficult to see how any insurance proceeds arising from the insurance over the Cathedral could be used off-site."
This is from page 49 of the 52 page report, which may be downloaded from here. The report as a whole is worth reading in respect of the cathedral and its future. I am not going to comment directly here on the report viz a viz the cathedral as these matters are being considered by Standing Committee and CPT and I think we should hear from them before engaging in further discussion.
But does paragraph 173 imply that insurance proceeds for damaged parish church X are paid out to the repair or replacement of parish church X? I am neither a lawyer not the son of a lawyer and look forward to a qualified opinion on this matter being presented to the Diocese.