The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a public place of religious worship, since it was not open to the public, or even to all church members.
Held: The church’s appeal failed. Though the law had altered since the Henning case, the relevant words had not, and that decision stood. The sacredness of the building and of the functions that are performed there are decisive and the Temple could not be described as a church hall. Only one of the buildings satisfied the requirements for exemption. As a matter of law, a place of ‘public religious worship’ must be one that is open to the general public.
Lord Scott said: ‘the grant of rating relief to premises for religious services that are open to the public and the withholding of that relief from premises for religious services which take place behind closed doors through which only a select few may pass is well justifiable and within the margin of appreciation available to individual signatory states. First, states may justifiably take the view that the practice of religion is beneficial both to the individuals who practise it as well as to the community of whom the individuals form part, and that, therefore, relief from rating for premises where religious worship takes place is in the public interest. But, second, states may also recognise that, although religion may be beneficial both to individuals and to the community, it is capable also of being divisive and, sometimes, of becoming dangerously so. No one who lives in a country such as ours, with a community of diverse ethnic and racial origins and of diverse cultures and religions, can be unaware of this. Religion can bind communities together; but it can also emphasise their differences. In these circumstances secrecy in religious practices provides the soil in which suspicions and unfounded prejudices can take root and grow; openness in religious practices, on the other hand, can dispel suspicions and contradict prejudices.’
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance
[2008] UKHL 56, Times 07-Aug-2008, [2008] 1 WLR 1852, [2008] 4 All ER 640, [2008] NPC 92, [2008] HRLR 46, [2008] RA 317, [2008] 2 P and CR DG25
Bailii, HL
Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch5 p11, Toleration Act 1688, Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791, Places of Religious Worship Act 1812, Poor Rate Exemption Act 1833
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cole v Police Constable 443A 1937
A ‘place of public religious worship’ required only ‘congregational worship’, that is to say, the assembly of a congregation whose association is solely for the purpose of joining in worship and not because they have private links such as being . .
Cited – Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) HL 1964
The House was asked whether the Mormon Temple at Godstone was exempt from rates as a ‘place of public religious worship’.
Held: The words could not apply to places used for religious worship from which the public was excluded.
Lord Pearce . .
Cited – Gilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .
Cited – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Cited – Regina v Chard HL 1983
The defendant appealed his conviction which had been obtained but based upon the evidence of a ‘super-grass’. His appeal failed, but the witness then withdrew his evidence. The matter was referred back to the court under the section, which then . .
Cited – Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) CA 1962
The court was asked whether a Mormon Temple was a public place of worship. Lord Denning MR rejected an argument that the Temple was merely a church hall: ‘The short answer is that this temple is not a church hall, chapel hall nor a similar building. . .
Cited – Thlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The application of a rule that a felon could not become a chartered accountant infringed the rights under article 14, taken in conjunction with article 9, of a pacifist convicted of the felony of refusing to perform military service. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – DH v Czech Repiublic ECHR 7-Feb-2006
The claimants, 18 Roma children complained, saying that they had automatically been placed in schools for children with special needs by virtue of their racial origin. . .
Cited – London Corporation v Cusack-Smith HL 1955
The House considered a purchase notice under section 19(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which turned on the second limb of the definition of ‘owner’ because the land in question was not let at a rack rent. Lord Reid considered a chain of . .
Appeal from – Gallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints CA 24-Nov-2006
. .
Cited – Broxtowe Borough Council v Birch CA 1983
A sect of Christians, the Exclusive Brethren set up one building with a notice declaring that the word of god would be preached on Sundays. This was interpreted as that it was open for public worship and exempt from rating. A second building was . .
Cited – W and JB Eastwood Ltd v Herrod (VO) HL 1971
The House was asked whether buildings used for producing broiler chickens were agricultural buildings. They would be exempt had it been possible to say that they were used ‘solely’ in connection with the agricultural operations on the land together . .
Cited – Trustees of West London Methodist Mission v Holborn Borough Council 1958
. .
Cited by:
Cited – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Mar-2014
latterdayECHR0314
The claimant said that it had been wrongfully deprived of relief from business rates for its two temples. It asserted that it was a religion, and that the treatment was discriminatory. The government said that the refusal was on the basis alone that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating, Human Rights, Ecclesiastical
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.271275
