Wylde v Attorney-General (NSW) ex rel Ashelford

The case of *Wylde v Attorney-General (NSW) ex rel Ashelford* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The original suit was brought by the Attorney-General for New South Wales, at the relation of several members of the Church of England in the Diocese of Bathurst, against the Bishop of Bathurst and the Church of England Property Trust, Diocese of Bathurst. The relators alleged that the Bishop had breached charitable trusts by using and authorising the use of an order for the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Communion other than that prescribed by the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and by permitting certain ceremonies, namely the making of the Sign of the Cross and the ringing of a sanctus bell, which were alleged to be illegal according to the rules of the Church of England.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned whether the use of the "Red Book" for the administration of Holy Communion and the associated ceremonies constituted breaches of charitable trusts. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Church of England in New South Wales was bound by the 1662 Act of Uniformity and its annexed Book of Common Prayer, and if deviations from this prescribed order and the performance of the specified ceremonies were unlawful within the context of the charitable trusts governing the churches. The court also considered whether the Bishop's actions were authorised by the internal governance of the Church of England in New South Wales and whether the relators had exhausted internal remedies.

The High Court's decision was divided. Latham C.J. and Williams J. allowed the appeal in part, proposing variations to the Supreme Court's decree to limit it to proven breaches of trust, specifically the use of the "Red Book" and the Sign of the Cross, while dismissing the appeal otherwise. Rich and Dixon JJ., however, would have allowed the appeal entirely and set aside the Supreme Court's decree. Ultimately, subject to the variations proposed by Latham C.J. and Williams J., the appeal was dismissed in accordance with s. 23(2)(b) of the *Judiciary Act 1903-1947*, meaning the Supreme Court's decision was varied and otherwise affirmed.