Gallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Rating exemption for religious premises depends on the statutory categories and the actual use of each building or physically distinct part. Under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, religious worship must be public: a restricted-access temple is not a qualifying place. The words to the extent that permit physical apportionment; they do not widen the exemption or create general site-wide relief. A sacred temple is not a church hall, chapel hall or similar building. Administrative or other qualifying activities must relate to organising public worship, rather than performing worship, ritual, missionary work or members’ private research. Religious belief is relevant context, but the assessment remains external, objective and analytical.

This was an appeal from a preliminary determination of the President of the Lands Tribunal, Mr George Bartlett QC, concerning whether buildings on a site at Temple Way, Chorley, were excluded from the rating list under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The Tribunal held that the Stake Centre was exempt but that the Temple, Missionary Training Centre, Patrons’ Services Building, Grounds Building and accommodation were not. The appeal challenged the treatment of the Temple, the Missionary Training Centre and related facilities. The central questions were whether restricted religious ceremonies constituted public religious worship, whether the buildings were church halls or similar buildings, and whether their activities related to the organisation of public worship.

Appeal dismissed. Neuberger LJ delivered the judgment, with Jacob LJ and Mummery LJ agreeing. The Stake Centre was exempt under paragraph 11(1)(a) and (b) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The other buildings were not.

1. The Temple. A place of religious worship must be public for the purposes of paragraph 11(1)(a). The Temple was accessible only to qualifying patrons and was therefore not a place of public religious worship. The Court followed the House of Lords reasoning in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (VO) [1964] AC 420. The words to the extent that in paragraph 11 did not widen the exemption. They imposed a physical qualification, allowing exemption for physically qualifying parts but not altering the requirement of public access.
2. Church-hall exemption. The Temple was not a church hall, chapel hall or similar building under paragraph 11(1)(b). The Court applied the Court of Appeal reasoning in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (VO) [1962] 1 WLR 1091, which treated the Temple as a sacred sanctuary distinct from an ordinary church or chapel hall. Its inclusion in a wider complex containing the Stake Centre did not make its use ancillary to public worship.
3. Organisational activities. Paragraph 11(2)(a) concerns administrative or other activities relating to the organisation of public worship, not the conduct of worship itself. Temple ordinances and their ancillary activities were therefore outside the exemption. The Missionary Training Centre was neither a church hall or similar building nor used in connection with a particular place of public worship, since missionaries were trained for service anywhere. Although the responsible-organisation condition was satisfied, missionary training did not relate to organising public worship. The Court assumed, without deciding, that singular could include plural under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, and that training might constitute other activities.
4. Other facilities and method. The statutory analysis was external, objective and analytical. The religious beliefs and activities were relevant context but could not displace the statutory wording. The Patrons’ Services Building had to be considered by its separate uses; its foyer, shop and Family History Centre did not qualify. Research carried out by members and the public for their own purposes was not clerical work under paragraph 11(2)(b). The Grounds Building and accommodation could not qualify merely because they supported the site as a whole.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — appeal dismissed: [2006] EWCA Civ 1598.
• Lands Tribunal — the President, Mr George Bartlett QC, made a preliminary determination in RA622004, holding that the Stake Centre was exempt but the other buildings were not.