Gallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [electronic resource]
Gallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [electronic resource]
- 2006
The appellant church appealed against the preliminary determination of the Lands Tribunal about the extent to which various buildings on a site owned by the appellant were to be excluded from the rating list and therefore not liable for business rates. The appellant contended that the Temple should be exempt on the basis that the wording in Local Government Finance Act 1988 s.5 was wider than that in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 s.7 and that therefore Church of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (1964), which was decided under the earlier Act did not apply. 'Held": the inclusion of the new wording into the statutory provisions of the 1988 Act did not begin to justify any ground for distinguishing or failing to apply the reasoning in Henning to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Henning, although the Temple was a place of worship, it was not open to the public for that purpose, Henning applied. It could not fairly be said that the use of a building primarily for training missionaries could be said to fall within the ambit of the expression "a church hall, chapel hall or similar building".
GALLAGHER V CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988 S5
RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1955
CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS V HENNING
England--886-
The appellant church appealed against the preliminary determination of the Lands Tribunal about the extent to which various buildings on a site owned by the appellant were to be excluded from the rating list and therefore not liable for business rates. The appellant contended that the Temple should be exempt on the basis that the wording in Local Government Finance Act 1988 s.5 was wider than that in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 s.7 and that therefore Church of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (1964), which was decided under the earlier Act did not apply. 'Held": the inclusion of the new wording into the statutory provisions of the 1988 Act did not begin to justify any ground for distinguishing or failing to apply the reasoning in Henning to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Henning, although the Temple was a place of worship, it was not open to the public for that purpose, Henning applied. It could not fairly be said that the use of a building primarily for training missionaries could be said to fall within the ambit of the expression "a church hall, chapel hall or similar building".
GALLAGHER V CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988 S5
RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1955
CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS V HENNING
England--886-