Broxtowe Borough Council v Birch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE OLIVER,LORD JUSTICE SLADE |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Civ J1206-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 06 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | 82/0471 LVC/286/1980 |
[1982] EWCA Civ J1206-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL
(J.H. EMLYN JONES ESQ., F.R.I.C.S.)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Stephenson
Lord Justice Oliver
(Not Present)
and
Lord Justice Slade
82/0471
LVC/285/1980
LVC/286/1980
and
and
MR. F. FERRIS QC and MR. G. SEWARD QC (instructed by Messrs. George Carter & Co, Solicitors, London EC4A 1HB) appeared on behalf of the first respondents (appellants)
MR. D. MICKLETHWAIT (instructed by the solicitor to the Broxtowe Borough Council, Beeston, Nottingham NG9 1AB) appeared on behalf of the Rating Authority (Respondents)
MR. ALAN FLETCHER (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue, London WC2R 1LB) appeared on behalf of the Valuation Officer
This is an appeal by the respondent trustees of the Arnesby Trust acting on behalf of members of a company of Christians known as the Exclusive Brethren ("The Brethren") by Case Stated from a decision of the Lands Tribunal (J.H. Emlyn Jones Esq., F.R.I.C.S.) dated 18th June 1981, by which he reversed two decisions of a Local Valuation Court for Nottinghamshire and directed entries in the valuation list of two hereditaments occupied by the trustees.
The two hereditaments were meeting halls in Beeston. They are shown in the valuation list for Broxtowe Borough as places of public religious worship exempt under s.39 of the General Rate Act 1967. The respondent rating authority proposed on the 28th March 1979 that one meeting hall, in Cyprus Avenue, should be entered on the list at a gross value of £200 and a rateable value of £140 and that the other, in Hillside Road, should be entered at a gross value of £1,474 and a rateable value of £1,200. Both the trustees and the valuation officer objected to those proposals. On 29th February 1980 the valuation court upheld their objections, held that the two halls were exempt and dismissed the appeals of the rating authority. The Lands Tribunal upheld the appeals of the rating authority from that decision, held that the two halls were not exempt and so directed the entries already mentioned. The trustees are aggrieved by that decision and Mr. Ferris on their behalf asks this court to hold that it was erroneous in law and should be replaced by the decision of the valuation court. Mr. Fletcher, for the respondent valuation officer, supports Mr. Micklethwait for the rating authority in asking us to uphold the Tribunal's decision.
The questions on which our decision is desired by the Case Stated on 9th March 1982 are:
-
"(1) whether upon the findings of fact I came to a correct decision in law in deciding that the two meeting halls in question are not places of public religious worship and accordingly are not hereditaments to which section 39 of the General Rate Act 1967 applies;
-
(2) whether in so deciding I misdirected myself in law by having regard not only to the question whether the said meeting halls were open to any properly disposed member of the public who wished to be present but also to a consideration of the extent to which members of the public were invited to attend or were aware of the fact that religious worship was observed on the premises;
-
(3) whether there was evidence upon which I was entitled to find:-
-
(a) that members of the public were not invited to attend meetings at the meeting halls;
-
(b) that the Brethren worship privately behind closed doors;
-
(c) that the Brethren by the removal of the notice board at Hillside Road have taken positive action to keep their meetings secret;
-
(d) that the passages from "The Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth" at pages 82 and 316 which are set out in my decision at page 8 represent a fair summary which illustrates in a general way the doctrine accepted by the Brethren."
-
The long delay in signing the Case was the result of efforts, not altogether successful, to persuade the Member to state further facts regarded as favourable to the trustees—a matter to which I shall have to refer later.
There is no doubt that these two halls are used as places of meeting for religious worship; they have been certified and registered as such under s.2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. But that is not enough to exempt them from rating. By s.39 of the General Rate Act 1967, re-enacting s.7 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955:
-
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any exemption from, or privilege in respect of, rates under any enactment other than this section, no hereditament to which this section applies shall, in the case of any rating area, be liable to be rated for any rate period.
-
(2) This section applies to the following hereditaments, that is to say—
-
(a) places of public religious worship which belong to the Church of England or to the Church in Wales (within the meaning of the Welsh Church Act 1914), or which are for the time being certified as required by law as places of religious worship;……."
To be exempt therefore, the halls must be "places of public religious worship". The valuation court concluded that they were, the Lands Tribunal "not without reluctance" that they were not. The Member found the problem presented by this case to be one of great difficulty, and Mr. Ferris' able argument that his conclusion was wrong, and wrong in law mainly because he applied the wrong test, has been most impressive. But I have come to the conclusion that his decision was right and will give my reasons.
The decision is important not only to the Brethren in Beeston and this rating authority. For we are told that there may be 300 other halls where the Brethren of the same persuasion as those the trustees represent meet for worship, which may lose the statutory exemption which they now enjoy. We are told also that, if the decision stands, the Registrar General may have to reconsider the registration of many of these halls as buildings for the solemnization of marriages under s.41 of the Marriage Act 1949 as amended.
The material facts are, in my opinion, these. The Brethren are a branch of a fellowship of Christians, often known as Plymouth Brethren because, though they were founded in Dublin in 1829, J.N. Darby established their first main centre in England at Plymouth in 1830. About 1849 they divided into "Open Brethren" and "Exclusive Brethren". About 1960 and again in 1970 the Exclusive Brethren were further divided into those who followed and those who did not follow the leadership of James Taylor junior, principally in his teaching about separation from evil. It is the Exclusive Brethren who still follow James Taylor junior, who are the Brethren represented by the trustees of the Arnesby Trust in this case. This historical background the Member took from a judgment of Fox J. in other proceedings by the Exclusive Brethren, and though Mr. Ferris has questioned the Member's statement that it was all "non-contentious", I do not think my selection from it is in serious dispute.
The two halls were acquired by the trustees under a trust deed of 9th July 1965. Clauses 3 (b) and 4 provide:
-
"(3) (b) The Trustees desire (though without thereby creating any trust) that the primary charitable purpose to which the Trust property shall be devoted shall be to employ the same for providing a meeting place or meeting places in England for the preaching of the Word of God and such other religious purposes for Christians as the Trustees shall in their absolute discretion permit.
-
(4) The Trustees may use the Trust property or any part thereof or permit the same to be used for the purposes of religious meetings of Christians or for any other charitable purpose or purposes which the Trustees may from time to time in their absolute discretion select but for no other purposes……."
The Hillside Road building is a single-storey brick-built building in a residential area entered through double gates with car parking space for 80 cars. It was designed by the trustees and first used in 1967. The main meeting hall seats 450 to 500 people. The Cyprus Avenue building is more like a scout hut or classroom; a prefabricated hut first occupied in 1971 and accommodating 70 to 80 people. There is nothing about either building to indicate that it is a place of worship, either in its architectural design or by way of a notice board. There had been a notice board outside the Hillside Road building stating that the Word of God would be preached at certain times on Sunday; but that was removed years ago, according to the Member to comply with the teaching of James Taylor junior, and no notice board was ever put up outside the Cyprus Avenue hut.
The use made of these two halls is explained in the passage which I now quote from p.8 of the Tribunal's decision (p.16 of our bundle):
"The Brethren have no constitution and there is no formal ministry. They give the appearance of being modelled on the early Christian church. The unit is the household and several households are related to one meeting room. Meeting rooms are collected into a 'city'. The two Beeston meetings form part of the Nottingham city which over the past few years has comprised three or four meeting rooms in Nottingham and one in Derby. The adjoining city is the Leicester city, comprising three meetings in Leicester and one in Loughborough. There is a considerable interchange between the two cities.
In a typical period of 14 days the meeting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
...had this been thought to be appropriate, because they fell outside the scope of the exemption as interpreted in Henning. In Broxtowe Borough Council v Birch [1983] 1 WLR 314 the question was whether two buildings used for religious worship by a company of Christians known as the Exclusive ......
-
Decision Nº LC-2021-346. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 05-01-2023 , [2023] UKUT 00001 (LC)
...by HMRC Solicitors, for the respondent © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 2 The following cases are referred to in this decision: Broxtowe v. Birch [1983] 1 WLR 314 Church of Christ Scientist v Westminster Corporation (1958) 3 RRC 35 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Henning [1964] AC 420 ......
-
Gallagher v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [2008] N.R. Uned. 264
...be appropriate, because they fell outside the scope of the exemption as interpreted in Henning . In Broxtowe Borough Council v. Birch [1983] 1 W.L.R. 314 the question was whether two buildings used for religious worship by a company of Christians known as the Exclusive Brethren were entitle......
-
Young Life v. Assessor, 2005 BCSC 1079
...952 (S.C.), affd. (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 136; 137 W.A.C. 136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49]. Broxtowe Borough Council v. Birch and others, [1983] 1 All E.R. 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54]. R. v. Registrar General, [1970] 3 All E.R. 886 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68]. Vancouver Island v. Victoria (C......