Gallagher (Valuation Officer) (Respondent) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (Appellants)

A place qualifies as a place of public religious worship for rating exemption only where the public, or the relevant section of the public, may attend worship there. Parliament’s repeated use of that settled expression preserved this public-access requirement.

A church hall, chapel hall or similar building must be ancillary or subsidiary to the qualifying place of worship. Administrative and other buildings qualify only to the extent that their use relates to organising the conduct of public worship in that place.

The public-access condition does not target a particular religion. In any event, distinguishing between open and closed worship is a justified condition for granting a fiscal exemption.

The Church sought exemption from non-domestic rates for its Temple and several associated buildings in Chorley. The Stake Centre, which contained a chapel open for public worship, was accepted to be exempt under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

The Lands Tribunal refused exemption for the remaining buildings. The Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion in [2006] EWCA Civ 1598. The Church appealed, principally contending that the Temple was a place of public religious worship despite restricting entry to members holding a religious recommend. Alternatively, it relied on the exemptions for church halls and buildings used for activities connected with organising public worship. It also alleged discrimination contrary to articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope delivered the principal speeches. Lord Carswell and Lord Mance agreed with both. Lord Scott agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, while preferring to assume that article 9 was within the ambit of the discrimination complaint.
2. Per Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) [1964] AC 420 was conclusive that “public religious worship” requires worship which the public may attend. Parliament had repeatedly retained that expression after its meaning had been settled. The Temple failed that test because the public and even Church members without a recommend were excluded.
3. The Temple did not qualify as a church hall, chapel hall or similar building under paragraph 11(1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Per Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope, “used in connection with” denotes ancillary or subsidiary use. The Temple was a separate, independent and pre-eminent centre of sacred worship, rather than an adjunct to the Stake Centre.
4. The Missionary Training Centre, Patrons’ Services Building, Patrons’ Accommodation and Grounds Building did not qualify under paragraph 11(2)(a). The provision requires activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of public worship in the particular qualifying place. General missionary training, services principally supporting the Temple, accommodation and site-wide maintenance did not satisfy that requirement.
5. Per Lord Hope, “to the extent that” permits apportionment where an ascertainable part of a building qualifies. The part must be capable of identification in the rating list as a separate hereditament. Lord Mance clarified that physical or spatial separation is unnecessary. No qualifying extent was established on the facts.
6. Per Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope, the rating liability did not fall within the ambit of article 9 because it did not prevent religious manifestation and represented loss of a fiscal advantage rather than taxation imposed because of religion. In any event, all the reasoned speeches accepted that the distinction was justified. Parliament could regard public access as a sufficient public benefit for fiscal exemption and enjoyed a wide discretionary area of judgment.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the Church’s appeal unanimously and affirmed the refusal of exemption for every disputed building.
2. Court of Appeal: In [2006] EWCA Civ 1598, upheld the Lands Tribunal’s conclusion that, apart from the Stake Centre, the buildings fell outside paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
3. Lands Tribunal: Held that the Stake Centre, its cultivated surroundings and dedicated parking area were exempt, but that the remainder of the hereditament was not exempt.