Decision Nº LC-2021-346. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 05-01-2023 , [2023] UKUT 00001 (LC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President Mr Mark Higgin |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKUT 00001 (LC) |
| Date | 05 January 2023 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | LC-2021-346 |
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
Neutral citation number: [2023] UKUT 00001 (LC) UTLC No.: LC-2021-346
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,
London WC2A 2LL
5 January 2023
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
RATING – EXEMPTION – Church of Scientology – whether hereditaments occupied by the
Church of Scientology were entitled to exemption – whether places of public religious worship
– whether church hall or similar building – whether offices or used for office purposes –
para.11, Sch. 5, Local Government Finance Act 1988 – appeal allowed in part
AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
FOR ENGLAND
BETWEEN: THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COLLEGE INC Appellant
-and-
ANDREW RICKETTS
(VALUATION OFFICER) Respondent
146 Queen Victoria Street,
London EC4V 4BY
and
68 Tottenham Court Road,
London W1T 2EZ
Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President and Mark Higgin FRICS
Heard on 19-21 October 2022
Richard Glover KC and Cain Ormondroyd, instructed by Hodkin & Company, for the appellant
Hui Ling McCarthy KC and Hugh Flanagan, instructed 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] 1 WLR 1852
Gillett v North West London Communal Mikvah (1982) RA 346
Johnson (VO) v H&B Foods Ltd [2013] UKUT 539
R. (Hodkin) v Registrar General [2013] UKSC 7
R v Registrar General, Ex p Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697
Trustees of West London Methodist Missions v Holborn Borough Council (1958) 3 RRC 86
(DC)
W & J B Eastwood v Herrod (VO) [1971] AC 160
3
Introduction
1. Scientology is a religion. The issue in this appeal is whether two buildings used by the
Church of Scientology in London are exempt from non-domestic rating under an
exemption covering places of public religious worship and related church premises.
2. The key to the relevant exemption is that the hereditament concerned must be or include
“a place of public religious worship”. To the extent that it consists of such a place a
hereditament will be exempt, and certain other places occupied by the same body will also
be exempt (church halls and similar buildings used in connection with a place of public
religious worship, and certain offices) (section 51, and paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the 1988 Act)).
3. In R. (Hodkin) v Registrar General [2013] UKSC 77, the Supreme Court determined that
the Scientology chapel at 146 Queen Victoria Street is a place of meeting for religious
worship within section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 which could be
registered as a place for the solemnisation of marriages under the Marriage Act 1949. As
a result, for the first time, members of the Church could lawfully marry there.
4. In reaching that conclusion the Supreme Court overruled R v Registrar General, Ex p
Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, a decision of the Court of Appeal which had held sway for
more than 50 years. In Segerdal Lord Denning MR had characterised Scientology as
“more a philosophy of the existence of man or of life, rather than a religion” and as having
“nothing in it of reverence for God or a deity”. The Supreme Court decided that, at least
on a contemporary understanding of religion and religious worship, the Court of Appeal
had adopted an unduly narrow view.
5. The question in Hodkin was simply whether the Scientology chapel was a place of meeting
for religious worship. The Supreme Court did not have to consider whether that worship
was public. Nor was it concerned with the uses of other parts of the building which
contains the chapel. Both are in issue in this appeal.
6. The appellant is the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc (the Church)
(an incorporated association registered as a charity in Australia). It occupies two buildings
in Central London, the London Church of Scientology at 146 Queen Victoria Street,
London EC4 (the London Church) (which was the focus of the dispute in Hodkin) and the
Dianetics & Scientology Life Improvement Centre at 68 Tottenham Court Road, London
W1 (the Information Centre).
7. The appeal arises out of proposals lodged on 12 March 2015 and 18 March 2015
against the 2010 list assessments for the London Church and the Information Centre.
Both proposals sought exemption by deletion of the relevant assessments with effect from
31 May 2011, and both were rejected as unfounded by the Valuation Officer. The appeal
is against a decision of Mr Gary Garland, the President of the Valuation Tribunal for
England (the VTE), handed down on 10 June 2021, by which he dismissed appeals by the
Church against the rejection of the proposals. On the basis of the evidence he had heard
To continue reading
Request your trial