[Darryl Telfer]

I realise many (or even all – except moi) of you learned professionals will know this provision verbatim – however, for completeness, I will quote it here anyway 🙂
“555 What land is exempt from all rates?
(1) The following land is exempt from all rates:
(e) land that belongs to a religious body and is occupied and used in connection with:
(iii) a building used or occupied for the purpose of religious teaching or training, or”

We have a request for exemption for a property with a temporary demountable building that is claimed to be used as a church office and for church meetings which “…are for the purpose of religious teaching and training and therefore meet the definition in sub-paragraph (iii)…”

I would have thought this provision meant a college or whatever other facility was being used to train priests, ministers, etc.

Does anyone know of any case law where the meaning “teaching or training” may have been addressed?

At this stage, in the absence of any case law either way, I propose to refuse request on the basis that the intention of the LGA was to provide exemption to facilities used for formal religious teaching or training and that as it is not clear that church meetings are dedicated purely or significantly for those purposes, that criteria is not met.

[John Towers]

Hi Darryl,

An interesting conundrum you find yourself with.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments & encourage you to refuse the application in the first instance, I’m not sure you will be successful in the long term if they pursue it further.

The Newcastle Hospital case (even though under the 1919 LGA) would seem to indicate that they occupy etc the land. http://revpronsw.dev.nucleoserver.com/content/uploads/2014/03/Rates-Exemption-City-of-Newcastle-v.-Royal-Newcastle-Hospital.pdf

Also, Joyce v Ashfield MC refers to worship etc, although some of this has been overturned in a more recent case involving the use of a house as a Mosque in Bankstown Council area (2000) House of Peace v Bankstown.

Also when I was at Liverpool we had a case involving the Jehovahs Witnesses – International Bible Students Assoc v LCC- (old LGA again) in which the definitions for what is now 555(1)(e) where expanded by the L&E Court to mean things that I thought they were never meant to mean.

Without knowing the Organisation involved there has been some case law over last 30 years which has changed what were long term ‘understanding’ of what the law intended. There was another case

You might also see what you can find on a case involving Trustees of Marist Brothers & Byron SC in 1983.

Finally if they fail under this section they may reapply under another section eg PBI etc which many organisations have done over the years.

Good luck.

JT

[Author]

Posts