The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has granted an appeal largely exempting from business rates two buildings in London occupied by the Church of Scientology in Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc v Ricketts (VO) [2023] UKUT 1 (LC); [2023] PLSCS 7.
Scientology is a religion based on the writings and recordings of L Ron Hubbard. The case concerned the appellant’s London church premises at 146 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4, and its information centre at 68 Tottenham Court Road, London W1. Both buildings were registered in the 2010 rating list, inter alia, as offices and premises with rateable values of £810,000 and £112,000 respectively.
The issue on the appeal was whether the two buildings were exempt from non-domestic rating to the extent that they consisted of places of public religious worship (including administrative or office purposes ancillary to such use) under section 51 and paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The VTE dismissed the appeals for exemption under the 1988 Act on the basis that none of the buildings contained a place of public religious worship.
The appellant conducted a weekly Sunday service in the chapel at the London church to which entry was free of charge, with typical congregations of 10-20. It was also used for weddings, funerals, naming ceremonies and ordinations. Much space at both buildings was allocated to informing and educating visitors about Scientology, including display areas, bookshops and many small cinema rooms for viewing lectures and talks by the founder. Rooms were also used for practices of the religion including spiritual counselling and a detoxification programme. Large parts of the London church were used as offices for ministers and staff, for record keeping, administration and the organisation of social programmes.
The chapel at the London church was certified as a place of religious worship under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, and so whether it was exempt under the 1988 Act depended solely on whether the worship there was public worship. The tribunal was entirely satisfied that the chapel was a place of public religious worship. The building, which was open to visitors every day, indicated by permanent signage and branding that it was a place where strangers were welcome, including to attend services. Non-Scientologists were encouraged to participate through the appellant’s website, by word of mouth and by email invitations.
Use of rooms as offices or for office purposes by an organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in a place certified by law is sufficient to exempt the parts of the hereditament so used. There is no need for any connection between the exempt activity and the conduct of public religious worship save through the identity of the occupier: Gallagher (VO) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2008] UKHL 56; [2008] PLSCS 230; [2008] 1 WLR 1852.
Adopting a broad approach, the tribunal decided that both hereditaments were used for the purposes of the church and that all of the spaces for which exemption was claimed so qualified save for two: an area for training of new practitioners in the religion’s core practices; and a space designated as the founder’s office which was akin to a shrine.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
