Bexley Congregational Church Treasurer v Bexley London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE MEGAW,LORD JUSTICE STAMP |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J0322-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 March 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Civ J0322-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal (by leave) by the Treasurer of the Bexley Congregational Church from Judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice dated 29th July, 1971.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Megaw and
Lord Justice Stamp.
Mr. A.B. DAWSON (instructed by Messrs. Kingsford Dorman & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. GUY SEWARD (instructed by The Solicitor, London Borough of Bexley) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The Bexley Congregational Church own a house, No. 259 Upton Road, Bexley. They use it to house their Minister. The house was occupied as a residence by the Minister from 1966 until July 30th 1969. That Minister was then posted elsewhere. The house was empty until 7th July 1970, when a newly appointed Minister took up residence. So it was empty for 11 months. During this period the Church held the house available as a residence. The question is whether or no the Church are liable to pay rates in respect of the time when the house remained empty. The Magistrates for the Bexley Division held that the Church were liable to pay rates, but they stated a case for the opinion of the Court. The Divisional Court affirmed the decision of the Justices. Now the Church appeal to this Court.
If this had case up for consideration before 1967, the one question would have been this: Was the Church in "occupation" of the house during the 11 months when it was empty but being held available for a Minister? If the house was in the "occupation" of the Church, then the Church would be liable to pay rates upon it, but, being a charity, it would only have to pay one half of the amount otherwise chargeable, see section 8 of the Rating Act 1955 and Glasgow Corporation v. Johnstone (1965) A.C. 609. But if the house was not in the occupation of the Church during those 11 months, then prior to 1967, the Church will not be liable to pay any rates for that period: because rates were only payable on premises that were occupied. They were not payable on unoccupied premises.
In 1967 however Parliament for the first time enacted that rates were to be paid on unoccupied property: but, whilst unoccupied, only one half was payable. This was enacted by section 17 of the General Rate Act 1967 and Schedule 1. Parliamentmade exceptions, however, even to that half liability. It gave total exemption to certain premises which are specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. In particular it said in paragraph 2(f) that no rates at all should be paid for any unoccupied house for any period during which "the hereditament is held for the purpose of being available for occupation by a Minister of religion as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office."
This house at Bexley certainly fulfilled paragraph 2(f) during the 11 months when it was empty. It was held available for the next Minister. It would seem, therefore, that the Church was not liable to pay any rates at all on the house.
How then have the Divisional Court escaped from paragraph 2(f)? They have done so by hold in: that during those 11 months this house was not unoccupied. it was "occupied" by the Church. They said that "during the 'held available' period the premises in this case would under the old law have been treated as occupied for rating purposes) see 1971 3 W. L. R. at page 895-H). Being "occupied", the house qualified for relief in the period that it was occupied by a charity (see section 40 of the General Rate Act 1967) and was only liable to pay half rates. But it did not qualify for total exemption under paragraph 2(f) of Schedule 1 because that only applied to unoccupied premises.
The ultimate question is therefore: During those 11 months was the house occupied by the Church? or was it unoccupied"? The Divisional Court said it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camden London Borough Council v Herwald
...as to jurisdiction (see Associated Cinema Properties Ltd. v. Hampstead Borough Council (1944) 1 King's Bench 412 and Bexley Church Treasurer v. Bexley London Borough Council (1972) 2 Queen's Bench 222). In In re McGreavy (1950) 1 Chancery 269 this Court disagreed with what it regarded as an......
-
Preston City Council v Oyston Angel Charity
...as if they were. The rating regimes need not be the same, and are in fact markedly different (see, e.g., Bexley Congregational Church Treasurer v Bexley London Borough Council [1972] 2 QB 222, e.g. at page 228C-E per Lord Denning MR). Some of those differences are made necessary, or at leas......