Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE,LORD HOFFMANN,BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKHL 73 |
| Date | 15 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No 1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[2005] UKHL 73
Appellate Committee
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Scott of Foscote
Baroness Hale of Richmond
HOUSE OF LORDS
Appellants:
Susan O'Brien QC
Brian Napier QC
(Instructed by Drummond Miller WS)
Respondents:
Laura Dunlop QC
Simon Collins
(Instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell, London agents for Church of Scotland Law Department)
My Lords,
These proceedings concern a sex discrimination claim brought against the Church of Scotland by a former minister of the church, Ms Helen Percy. The question is whether, as a matter of law, such a claim lies on the facts of this case. This raises two main issues. The first is whether Ms Percy's relationship with the church constitutes 'employment' as defined in section 82(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The second issue is whether Ms Percy's discrimination claim constitutes a spiritual matter within section 3 of the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and, as such, it is within the exclusive cognisance of the Church of Scotland and its own courts.
Ms Percy, a single woman, was ordained a minister of the Church of Scotland on 12 December 1991. In June 1994 she was appointed to the position of associate minister in a Church of Scotland parish in Angus. In June 1997 an allegation of misconduct was made against her. She was said to have had an affair with a married elder in the parish. The presbytery of Angus set up a committee of enquiry to investigate the allegation. Ms Percy was suspended from her duties. The committee found there was a case to answer, and the presbytery began making preparations for holding a trial by libel, that is, trying a formal disciplinary charge against Ms Percy. At a mediation meeting arranged by the church Ms Percy was counselled to resign and demit status as a minister. In December 1997 she demitted status, that is, she resigned as an ordained minister of the church. The presbytery accepted this. Necessarily that brought to an end her appointment as associate minister.
The proceedings
Ms Percy initiated these proceedings in an employment tribunal, then known as an industrial tribunal, in February 1998. She named as respondent the Church of Scotland. She alleged unfair dismissal and unlawful sex discrimination. The essence of her discrimination claim was that in similar circumstances the church had not taken similar action against male ministers known to have had extra-marital sexual relationships. Notice of appearance was given by the 'Church of Scotland Board of National Mission'.
In December 1998 the employment tribunal dismissed Ms Percy's application for want of jurisdiction. Both complaints comprised 'matters spiritual' and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Church of Scotland as provided by the Church of Scotland Act 1921. The employment tribunal added that, although there was a contract in existence, having regard to the essentially religious nature of Ms Percy'ms duties it was not a contract of employment as defined in the unfair dismissal legislation or as defined in section 82(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Ms Percy appealed against that decision so far as it related to her claim for sex discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, presided over by Lord Johnston, dismissed the appeal in March 1999. The appeal tribunal held that the case concerned the disciplining of a minister with regard to her living and that was a matter spiritual governed by article IV in the Schedule to the 1921 Act. On matters spiritual Parliament has allowed the Church of Scotland an exclusive jurisdiction. The appeal tribunal added that 'with some hesitation' it had concluded that the arrangement between Ms Percy and the National Board of Mission was not a contract for work and labour within section 82(1) of the 1975 Act.
Ms Percy appealed again. In March 2001 the First Division of the Court of Session, comprising the Lord President, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Caplan, dismissed the appeal: 2001 SC 757. The leading judgment was given by the Lord President, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. He considered first whether Ms Percy was employed by the Board of National Mission in terms of a 'contract personally to execute any work or labour'. After reviewing the authorities the Lord President enunciated a principle that where an appointment was made to a recognised form of ministry within the Church of Scotland, and where the duties of that ministry were essentially spiritual, it was to be presumed there was no intention that the arrangements made with the minister would give rise to obligations enforceable in the civil law. The presumption was rebuttable. In the present case the Lord President was not persuaded the parties intended to create relations enforceable in the civil courts.
Contracts of service and the clergy
The existence of a contract of service between a minister of religion and his church is a question courts have considered on several occasions. In Re Employment of Church of England Curates [1912] 2 Ch 563, 568, 569, Parker J held that a curate in the Church of England was not employed under a 'contract of service' within Part I (a) of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act 1911: 'the position of a curate is the position of a person who holds an ecclesiastical office, and not the position of a person whose rights and duties are defined by contract at all'. Thus Parker J contrasted the position of an office holder and a person whose functions are defined by contract.
In Scottish Insurance Commissioners v Church of Scotland 1914 SC 16 the Court of Session reached the same conclusion regarding assistants to ministers, not to be confused with associate ministers, of the Church of Scotland. Applying the 'control' test used in identifying a contract of employment, an assistant to a minister was not subject to the control and direction of any particular master. An assistant holds an ecclesiastical office and performs his duties subject to the laws of the church: Lord Kinnear, at page 23. Lord Kinnear added that in any event there was difficulty in identifying exactly who was the assistant's employer. Lord Johnstone noted that employment must be under a contract of service. A contract of service assumes an employer and a servant. It assumes the power of appointment and dismissal in the employer, the right of control over the servant in the employer, and the duty of service to the employer in the servant. There was no one who occupied that position. The contract in which the assistant was engaged was more a contract for services than a contract of service: pages 26-27.
The Court of Appeal decision in President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] ICR 176 concerned an unfair dismissal claim brought by a Methodist minister. The issue was whether the parties had entered into a contract of service. The court held that having regard to all the circumstances it was impossible to conclude that any contract, let alone a contract of service, came into being between a newly ordained minister and the Methodist Church when the minister was received into full connection.
The same question arose for decision by your Lordships' House in Davies v Presbyterian Church of Wales [1986] ICR 280. The case concerned an unfair dismissal claim by a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Wales who had been inducted pastor of a united pastorate in Wales. Lord Templeman delivered the leading speech. He held that the claimant could not point to any contract between himself and the church. The book of rules did not contain terms of employment capable of being offered and accepted in the course of a religious ceremony.
The same issue arose again in Diocese of Southwark v Coker [1998] ICR 140, this time in the context of an unfair dismissal claim by an assistant curate of the Church of England. Again the claimant failed. Mummery LJ analysed the reason underlying the absence of a contract between a church and a minister of religion in these cases as lack of intention to create a contractual relationship. He said that special features surrounding the appointment and removal of a Church of England priest as an assistant curate, and surrounding the source and scope of his duties, preclude the creation of a contract 'unless a clear intention to the contrary is expressed': page 147. Mummery LJ noted that under the employment protection legislation the relevant right of an employee is not to be dismissed by his employer. He then considered and rejected one by one the possible candidates for the role of employer in that case. The Diocese of Southwark was not a legal person with whom a contract could be concluded. The Church Commissioners paid Dr Coker's stipend and the Diocesan Board of Finance made the necessary arrangements for the payment. But neither of them appointed him, removed him or had power to control the performance of his services. It was not contended that either of Dr Coker's vicars had a contract with him. That left only the bishop of the diocese. The bishop had legal responsibility for licensing the appointment of assistant curates and the termination of their appointments. But that relationship was 'governed by the law of the established church, which is part of the public law of England, and not by a negotiated, contractual arrangement': page 148.
A contract for services
As will be apparent from this brief summary, there are several different strands in the reasoning of these leading authorities. Some of them call for comment before turning to the facts of the instant case. But it should be noted at the outset that in each of these cases the issue was whether a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity and another
...minister of religion and his church was most recently authoritatively considered in Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission [2005] UKHL 73 [2006] AC 28. Mrs Percy was an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland and it was held that since the appointment offered to, and accep......
- Sharpe v Worcester Diocesan Board of Finance Ltd and another
-
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga,
...Province of Our Lady of Charity, [2012] EWCA Civ 938, [2013] Q.B. 722; Percy v. Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland, [2005] UKHL 73, [2006] 2 A.C. 28; Berry v. Pulley, 2002 SCC 40, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493; The Satanita, [1895] P. 248, aff’d Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven......
-
Ms R Moon v Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust: 2414248/2021
...office pursuant to a contract: see McMillan v Guest [1942] AC 561 and Percy v National Mission of the Church of Scotland [2005] UKHL 75 [2006] 2 AC 28. But whether, a contract may be considered to exist is itself dependent upon the intention of the parties: Preston (formerly Moore) v Presid......
-
Misfeasance in public office: a very peculiar tort.
...Datafin plc [1987] 1 QB 815. (296) Three Rivers [2003] 2AC 1,191. (297) Ibid 230. (298) Ibid 229. See also Percy v Church of Scotland [2006] 2 AC 28, 38 [17] (Lord Nicholls), 46 [54] (Lord Hoffmann). (299) [2008] 1 WLR 2255, 2263 [23]. Spigelman CJ agreed in Leerdam (2009) 255 ALR 553, 554 ......
-
The curious case of marriage/civil partnership discrimination in Britain
...(t/a Mopdocs Barbers) v Phillips Unreported (EAT) (s 3A SDA rather than s 3);Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission [2006] 2 AC 28 (mistaken link to s3 of the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and extra-marital relations).23. Advocate General for Scotland v MacDonald [2002] SC 1 (IH......
-
Discipline in Religious Institutions
...on the ground that the bishop-priest relationship was not one of employment. 47 McCaw v. United Church of Canada , above note 11. 48 [2006] 2 A.C. 28 (H.L.) [ Percy ]. See also Frank Cranmer & Scot Peterson, “Employment, Sex Discrimination and the Churches: The Percy Case” (2006) 8 Ecclesia......
-
ENVISIONING THE JUDICIAL ABOLITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF CONSIDERATION IN SINGAPORE
...do not intend to create legal rights and obligations”). 211 President of the Methodist Conference v Parfit [1984] QB 368 at 378. 212 [2005] UKHL 73. 213 H G Beale ed, Chitty on Contracts (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 30th Ed, 2008) at para 2-181. 214 New Testament Church of God v Stewart [2007]......