LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL
VR/3/1996
BETWEEN
THE ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS OF ST COLUMBANUS - APPELLANT
AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND - RESPONDENT
Lands Tribunal - Mr Michael R Curry FRICS FSVA IRRV ACI.Arb
Belfast - 6th March 1998
This was an appeal against the Commissioner's refusal to give charitable exemption to the
Order of the Knights of St Columbanus ("the Knights") who occupied a hereditament ("the
O'Neill Centre") at 14 York Lane, Belfast. They may be described briefly as a fraternal
organization for lay members of the Catholic Church.
John Stewart BL instructed by Campbell and Caher, appeared for the Appellant. Stephen
Shaw BL instructed by the Crown Solicitor, appeared for the Respondent.
Grounds of Exemption
A broad brush had been adopted for the Appeal, seeking exemption under three heads of
Article 41(2) of the Rates (NI) Order 1977. In outline, the relevant provisions of these
headings are:
(b)
(ii) a church hall, chapel hall or similar building occupied by a religious body and used
for purposes connected with that body; or for purposes of any charity.
(c)
a hereditament, which(i) is occupied by a charity (i.e. a body established for charitable purposes only); and
(ii) used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes (of that charity or other charities); or
(d)
a hereditament, which is occupied by a body(i) which is not established or conducted for profit; and
(ii) whose main objects are charitable..;
and used wholly or mainly for the purposes of those main objects.
In Pemsel [1891] AC 531 Lord Macnaghten set out four principal divisions of legally
acceptable charity. These continue to be the recognized groupings and are:
-1-
trusts for the relief of poverty;
trusts for the advancement of education;
trusts for the advancement of religion; and
trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the
preceding heads.
The stated grounds of this appeal were refined by the contention of the Knights that their
objects and use were in the charitable category "the advancement of religion".
Some care is required in any comparison with Scotland, where the statutory background is
quite different, with England where, in the legislation broadly equivalent to (d)(ii), there is no
requirement for the "advancement" of religion, and with the Republic of Ireland where parts
of the law relating to religious charities have developed along somewhat different lines.
The main focus was on Article 41(2)(d) and, in essence, the Knights claimed to be a body
whose main object was the advancement of religion, and the hereditament was used wholly
or mainly for the purposes of that main object.
The first step is to determine the main object or objects; the next is to examine how the
hereditament was actually used.
Main Objects and Ambiguity
The authorities make clear that, where there is a written statement of objects, the Tribunal
must begin with that and, if they are comprehensively set out and there is no ambiguity, the
Tribunal must go no further e.g. Berry v St Marylebone [1957] 1 All ER 681.
There was no relevant Deed of Trust but the objects were set out in a written constitution.
The stated objects were:
(a)
to promote, by personal and group action, the extension of practical Christianity in all
(b)
(c)
(d)
phases of life.
to maintain a fraternal order of Catholic lay leadership.
to honour the Faith.
to prepare its members for the Apostolate.
Clearly the Knights’ objects had a strongly religious flavour. For purposes of this appeal,
the question was whether the main objects fell within the category of the advancement of
religion, perhaps one or more in different ways, with any other objects being merely
ancillary or subsidiary. On a preliminary view, the Tribunal would say that the stated
-2-
objects indicate a number of separate and distinct main objects that included at least one
religious object but, if any object had primacy, it would appear to be the first. Not without
reservations, the Tribunal accepts that an informed reader of the objects might conclude
otherwise and it is appropriate to give the Knights the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, for
reasons explored later, that would be the end of the matter.
The broad thrust of a religious object might be either the sustaining and reinforcing of faith
within the body of the Knights or advancing of religion in the wider community, or both. If
there are a number of distinct objects that are main objects, perhaps relating separately to
the good works, lay leadership, and religion, that raises a difficult question for the Knights of
whether they each are for the advancement of religion.
So, as some or all of the stated objects might be capable of different interpretations in
regard to their meaning, relationship and relative primacy, the Tribunal has considered what
was in fact done by the Knights.
The Knights
It may be helpful to begin by briefly setting out a summary of the Tribunal's findings, on the
evidence, of the organization and its structure.
Although the Order was founded in Belfast in 1915 by J.K. Canon O'Neill, it had since
expanded throughout Ireland with headquarters now in Dublin. Membership of the Order
was by invitation. Any existing member could make a nomination but there was a rigorous
selection procedure and the number had remained limited. The basic unit in which
members, known as Knights, assembled was a Primary Council, which met monthly. Each
Council was led by a Grand Knight, elected by the Knights, had a priest as Chaplain and
was managed by a committee known as a Chapter, which also met monthly.
These Primary Councils were grouped into 12 Provincial Areas whose boundaries
corresponded with ecclesiastical divisions of the Catholic Church in Ireland. For example,
the Knights had 11 Primary Councils in Provincial Area No. 2 (Down and Connor) with
about 200 Knights in total.
Each Area had a Provincial Council that included representatives of each Primary Council
within the Area:
these were the Grand Knights, their Deputies, and an elected
representative from each. It was led by a Provincial Grand Knight, met at least quarterly,
and was managed by an Executive Committee, elected by the Knights in the Area. The
office bearers included a Provincial Treasurer (one gave evidence). Each Provincial
Council had a Provincial Chaplain, who was nominated by the Provincial Grand Knight,
subject to the approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical authority.
-3-
In Provincial Area No. 2, the Provincial Grand Knight (who also gave evidence) reported on
activities to the Bishop of Down and Connor, accepted his Episcopal authority and the
Knights had the Bishop's approval, support and encouragement.
The Supreme Council was the governing body of the Knights, included an elected
representative from each Primary Council, and met annually. The head of the Order, the
Supreme Knight, was one of a number, elected by the Supreme Council, to hold Supreme
Offices. He presided over the Council of Directors who implemented the decisions of the
Supreme Council and made appointments, from those elected, including that of Supreme
Warden (who also gave evidence); the latter's responsibilities included property matters.
So, evidence was given by:
Nicholas McKenna, Provincial Treasurer of Area No. 2;
Michael Hilton, Provincial Grand Knight of that Area; and
Patrick Sylvester John Byrne, Supreme Warden.
Mr McKenna was a Director of a Catering Supplies Business, Mr Hilton, a teacher of
Religion and English and Mr Byrne, an Architect.
The Hereditament
The hereditament was part of a building owned by Columbanus Enterprises Ltd. Parts of
the building were demised to three other organizations - the Diocesan Resource Centre
(the subject of a separate appeal), the Catholic Book Company and the Columban Club.
The remainder was the subject of this appeal and the accommodation included an
assembly hall, meeting rooms and ancillary accommodation.
It was pointed out that, on a plan of the premises, the layout had the appearance of parts
being allocated for other purposes and the residue, on various floors, left for the Knights.
There was no formal licence or tenancy agreement, and some aspects of the relationships
with the Columban Club and Columbanus Enterprises Ltd, relating to the premises, were
not entirely clear, but the Commissioner took no issue with whether the hereditament was
correctly defined or whether the Knights were correctly identified as the occupier. As these
matters were not before the Tribunal, it expresses no view on them but it would appear that
although social intercourse and discreet festivity were not excluded from their fellowship
object, that activity had largely been siphoned off, from the appeal premises, to the
Columban Club.
The Activities of the Knights
-4-
It is a question for the Tribunal and not for the Knights, but Mr Hilton's evidence concerning
their objects provided helpful guidance. The Knights' motto translated as "to restore all
things in Christ" and that flowed from the commandments "Love God and Love your
neighbour".
Generally, the Knights relied mainly on evidence of what was done, directly or indirectly
connected with this hereditament, rather than on an overview of their activities as a whole
throughout Ireland, both to clarify their objects as well as demonstrate their actual use of
the premises.
Mr McKenna gave explanations of accounts of the Provincial Area and a number of Primary
Councils, including some who did not use the premises, but much of the financial
administration was said to be based in Dublin.
Trading accounts may be relevant for two main purposes; the first is to assist with
understanding the nature of the body and the second is as an indicator of how the body
actually uses the particular hereditament under appeal.
Mr McKenna had been Provincial Treasurer for 2 years and produced trading accounts for
Area No. 2. He also gave explanations of items in a number of Primary Council accounts.
In the Area No. 2 accounts, in recent years, income and expenditure were of the order of a
few thousand pounds. Receipts included Levies from Members; a Capitation fee was
charged for new members and then passed on to headquarters in Dublin. On the payments
side, the Supreme Knight received a donation that he could use for his chosen charity, it
was at his absolute discretion; there was a Supreme meeting at which Knights from all over
Ireland attended and lasted for 3 days and delegates were paid expenses to attend; and a
donation was made to a fund for the benefit of Widows and Orphans of former members,
similarly there was a benevolent fund for members and dependants and these funds were
administrated from Dublin. Amount for rent appeared on the accounts but that was a
contribution towards heat and light for the building. The 1994 accounts included figures
from fund raising including a dance and 200 Club draw.
The accounts for Belfast Primary Council 1 showed a similarly modest scale of financial
activities. Receipts included some 20 annual subscriptions, and revenue from fund raising,
including quizzes and barbecues. Expenditure included membership fees to Central Funds
and a levy to the Provincial Council, expenses for attending the Supreme meeting,
Columban Club fees (or donations to Columban Club charities) and room hire for meetings.
On an overview, other accounts for Primary Councils using the premises were not
dissimilar.
-5-
Clearly, there was a relationship with the Columban Club; monies from the Order were paid
to the Columban Club and there was an overlap, but the Tribunal was informed that the
main purpose of that Club was social; not all Knights would espouse the activities of the
Club and Knights chose whether to join or not. From time to time, those Club premises
were used for fund raising as their premises suited better. If a Council found it necessary to
raise funds, that might be organized for them through the Columban Club.
The activities, mainly associated with these premises, organized by the Knights included:
A Relief Scheme - Members dealt with needy families on a day to day basis, providing
appropriate assistance. Members provided hampers of food in Belfast once a month and
particularly at Christmas when some 500 were delivered. The hampers generally were
produced by members donating goods. This was a substantial exercise and the value of
the hampers produced by one Council, for example, was of the order of £50,000.
A Holiday Scheme - Members provided transport, food etc. and worked with a number of
charities, community groups and religious societies to provide holidays for families in
difficulty.
A Youth Scheme - This brought low achieving children together and in the summer holidays
provided additional schooling both in academic subjects and general life skills. A Job
Search Programme and Mock Interview programme helped assist those seeking
employment.
A Children's Christmas Party - Part of the purpose was to engage deprived and abused
children in a family situation along with members’ families so as to both assist the
unfortunate children and heighten the Members' families awareness.
General - There were a number of other activities to assist the needy, deprived, the sick,
the disadvantaged and distressed, for example Members organized outings for those
suffering from Alzheimers.
Foreign Aid - They assisted with charitable work in the third world and recently for Italy by
organizing the assembly of emergency aid (including caravans and tents) and taking it
there.
A Visitation Scheme - Members visited hospitals and the sick at home. Within the Order
they had a number of Eucharistic Ministers who had been selected to administer the
sacrament.
-6-
A Choir - Members and their wives and families formed the Columban Choir. They sang at
acts of worship and were available for any council anywhere.
An Emigration Assistance Scheme - They provided help and contacts for those emigrating
to England.
Awareness - Seminars and debates were organized with speakers, including lay and
clerical speakers from all areas. For example, once a month, a group called the Northern
Area Committee organized activities, discussions and lectures on issues of social
importance so the Knights were better informed and were able to provide leadership in
regard to these problems in their parishes. There was a focus on educational interest and
concerns and it would be the aim to promote members to become governors or members of
Parent Teachers Association and to contribute to education in that way.
The Use of the Hereditament
The accommodation provided a central meeting place for the Knights in Northern Ireland
and for Provincial Area No. 2 (Down and Connor). Councils and Chapters met there and it
wasused for about 14 evening meetings per month altogether. Council meetings were
sometimes held in meeting rooms, sometimes in the main hall. The meeting rooms were
barely furnished. Although the hereditament was also used for some administrative work
including administration of matters such as the benevolent fund, there was no staff
employed and there was no office equipment, no secretarial work went on. The detailed
work of administration took place in the Knights own homes and these premises were
seldom used during the day.
At meetings, normally the Grand Knight would give a spiritual affirmation of the object as
the extension of practical Christianity. There would be prayers followed by the business
part of the meeting which would be to do with projects or with religious education by a priest
or expert or minister. Most of the work, such as the holiday scheme and relief schemes,
was planned rather than executed on the premises but the premises did provide a role as a
depot for other schemes. Mr McKenna described the meetings as businesslike but with a
religious atmosphere.
There were 7 Councils of Knights in Belfast and a number of those would use the rooms but
Mr McKenna's own Council met in Ballymena, in an hotel. The Centre was really the centre
for Area No. 2 and in practice those helped, from the Centre, were generally in Greater
Belfast.
Clerics were not always present at meetings but there quite often and lectures took place in
both the main hall and meeting rooms.
-7-
Mass was celebrated once a month by priests from either within or without the Order. Of
the people at the mass the majority would be Knights but others would be families of
Knights, family and friends. The masses always had a particular purpose, for example, a
mass for someone ill or a mass for the dead.
There was an area dinner at least once a year, with a Knight at each table entertaining
guests.
Although there was a degree of use of the subject premises for purposes of fund raising,
that was such a limited use that it may be ignored.
Main Objects
This list is not complete but gives the general picture. Although many activities took place
away from the Centre, much of the conception and organization for activities took place
there.
The Tribunal was referred to Trustees of Belfast YMCA v COV [1969] NI 3. The Tribunal
accepts it must reflect a contemporary context and perspective in its application of the
principles to the construction of the objects and the judgement of Lord MacDermott LCJ
reflected a more liberal view than had been adopted in earlier cases. However, it is one
thing to accept that a wide range of activities including organized games may be consistent
with an object of the advancement of religion, it is quite another thing to observe a rugby or
hockey match and conclude that the objects of the body occupying the playing field are the
advancement of religion. The stated objects are the compass for the inferences to be
drawn from the activities.
Bearing that in mind and looking at what the Knights in fact did in the community the
Tribunal finds, their main objects may be stated, in summary, to be as follows. One object
was to provide practical assistance to help those in need in the community (for convenience
the 'good works' object). Another object was to use their activities, both individually or as a
group, to help to sustain or intensify their own faith and in so doing help other Knights to
move theirs forward (for convenience the 'religious' object). A further object was that, by
becoming better informed in other spheres of community activity, the Knights would
become leaders in the lay community (for convenience the 'lay leadership' object).
Returning to the written constitution, objects (c) and (d) combine to form a distinct main
object with the emphasis on religion (there is, however, a question as to whether that object
qualifies as the "advancement" of religion); object (a) is a distinct main object with the
emphasis on practical good works: and object (b) is a distinct main object of the Knights
-8-
sustaining a role as lay leaders. In aid of, or in attaining these main objects, they aimed to
become better informed, relied on religious observation and instruction, and fellowship and
sharing common experience and goals, for mutual support. These aims and activities were
important but, in so far as they may demonstrate objects, the Tribunal finds them to be
subsidiary or ancillary to the others.
Charitable Objects
The Tribunal now turns to the question of whether these main objects all are charitable in
the legal sense, and in particular whether, even though they are distinct objects, each can
be treated, as claimed, as the advancement of religion. There was a religious object, but
the majority, by far, of their activities was consistent with the stated main object of carrying
out practical good works.
The lay leadership object aimed, through fellowship, to advance the role and influence of
Knights in the community. Many of their activities confirmed a desire to exercise a benign
influence, based on their faith, in important spheres such as education but the promotion of
faith must be regarded as an indirect result rather than a direct objective. Mere socializing
was not excluded in connection with their fellowship and, although the Columban Club
premises were accepted to be a separate hereditament, the Club itself was directly
integrated with the Knights. On the evidence, the Tribunal cannot accept the lay leadership
object to be only, or almost only, the advancement of religion, even indirectly.
There is no necessary causal connection between doing good works and advancing religion
and, looking at the actual activities, although they were obviously extremely worthwhile,
there was no overt connection with advancement of religion in the vast majority of them.
There was no effort to provide religious education, for example, in connection with the
Holiday Scheme or Christmas parties. Religious educational activities were not directed at
the public at large but generally were confined to the Knights themselves. All Knights were
Roman Catholic but not all beneficiaries were Roman Catholic, and although most might
be, the Knight's target was not to evangelize or convert, the Order was based on respect of
other traditions and faiths. By giving an example, the desire was that people would
recognize their motivation in most of what they did. Although, in the impact of example,
others might be led to follow, there was no effort to indoctrinate, there was no overt
evangelism in terms of word. So it does not follow that their setting of an example
amounted to an advancing of religion.
"For a man may persuade his neighbour by example to lead a good life without at the same
time leading him to religion."
United Grand Lodge v Holborn B.C. [1957] 3 All E.R.
-9-
The Tribunal cannot accept the contention that the object of doing good works was the
advancement of religion and, by reason of that alone, a charitable purpose.
There can be no doubt that the religious object was to sustain and reinforce the Knight's
own faith but the important questions remain of whether the object included the
advancement of religion in the wider community (for convenience only, ‘reaching out’) and,
if not, whether the former alone qualifies, in these circumstances, as legally charitable?
Often, when dealing with religious orders, the decided cases refer to the former category as
‘self sanctification’ but that does not seem entirely appropriate for this lay body and the
Tribunal prefers here to refer to ‘personal strengthening of faith’. It follows from the
conclusions outlined above in regard to the good works object, and in the absence of
significant other public religious activities, apart from some religious observances to which
friends and families were invited, that the Tribunal finds the object was not one of reaching
out, as such.
Looking at the activities as a whole, it is clear that the Knights engaged in real, practical
activities of benefit to others in the community, and that these were good works and
charitable in everyday language if not shown to be so in the rating context and the Tribunal
has no doubt that the Knights’ objects included personal strengthening of faith. The
Tribunal accepts that coming together as a group of apostolates, in this way, to act in
charity may constitute an acting out of their faith and in so doing they may advance their
own religion. The Tribunal concludes that the religious main object was personal
strengthening of faith but that rather than reaching out.
In Cocks v Manners (1871) 12 Eq. 574, a distinction was made, as a result of which it was
held that a pious purpose was not necessarily a charitable purpose. In particular, personal
or self sanctification, perhaps by prayer and pious contemplation, generally was not a
charitable object. But, in COV v The Trustees of the Redemptorist Order [1971] N.I. 114,
MacDermott LCJ concluded that a body, which would not be charitable for that reason, may
yet be charitable in law if, as a means thereto, the members engaged in outside good
works. It was so in that case, but it is the view of this Tribunal it is not essential, for this
purpose, to show that such good works qualified in their own right as charitable in law; the
test should not be as strict as that. That is not to say that the strict charitable test is
inappropriate if such works are stated or found to be a main aim.
Although raised by the Tribunal at the Hearing, this line of reasoning was not fully explored
at the time, and it can lead to sophisticated argument, but the Tribunal concludes, without, it
hopes, straying too far from the contentions of the parties, that applying that principle, the
religious main object qualifies as the advancement of religion. In reaching that conclusion
- 10 -
the Tribunal has taken a view on the good works but, for the avoidance of doubt, the
Tribunal makes clear that it did not allow consideration of the good works in the context of a
wider charitable ambit as that had not been raised either in the Appeal to the Commissioner
or in the Statement of Case. It would be too late, the parties must know in advance the
case they have to meet, the issues are sophisticated and further, the enquiry into the
evidence may have required a different approach.
Mr Hilton quoted the Apostle James: "faith without good works is meaningless". Personal
strengthening of faith on its own is, as it were, "meaningless" in the legal charitable context
and fails the test but when coupled with good works then it becomes meaningful and
passes the test.
However, as already stated, both the lay leadership and the good works objects also stand
on their own feet as main objects and that being so, the Tribunal finds that there are two
other main objects and not one overall object of the advancement of religion. As the
Tribunal has found the good works to be a main object, and there is much to suggest it to
be the most important object, the good works must also be separately considered in that
context. The Tribunal finds that whether or not the good works object might, on enquiry, be
found to be a legally acceptable charitable object, it does not, of itself, sufficiently facilitate
the advancement of religion to qualify as a charitable object of that category.
The conclusions of the Tribunal are that stated objects (c) and (d) combine as a main
religious object for the advancement of religion and a charitable purpose. But the good
works object (a), and the lay leadership object (b) however meritorious, do not qualify as
objects for the advancement of religion. The good works object may or may not qualify as a
charitable object of another kind or kinds but that would require appropriate investigation.
As it follows that they have a main object or objects that do not qualify as charitable, the
Tribunal is not persuaded that the Knights are a body established for charitable purposes
only, nor a body whose main objects are charitable, for purposes of Article 41. In particular
they are not a body established for the advancement of religion only. Strictly, that is the
end of the matter, so far as Article 41(2)(c) and (d) are concerned, because it is not a
hereditament, which is occupied by a body "established for charitable purposes only" nor is
it a hereditament, which is occupied by a body "whose main objects are charitable".
The Purposes of the Activities at the Hereditament
Having come to that conclusion on the objects of the body as a whole, it is not necessary to
consider whether the actual hereditament is itself used wholly or mainly for charitable
purposes (of that charity or other charities) and, in particular the advancement of religion.
However, for completeness only, the Tribunal briefly sets out its views on that.
- 11 -
Although, in appropriate circumstances, each may aid interpretation of the other, objects
and activities must be separately considered and not confused. It should also be said that,
where an object is stated, consideration of an activity should only be used as an aid to
clarification of the object and should not be allowed to replace such an object with an object
of a different character, even where a wide charitable ambit has been contended for.
The authorities e.g. Oxfam v City of Birmingham [1975] 2 All ER 289 and Johnstone v
Glasgow City Corp [1965] 1 All ER 730 illustrate the principle that the Tribunal must look for
activities that directly facilitate the charitable objects. The question here is whether the
activities wholly or mainly directly facilitate the advancement of religion.
It follows from the conclusions discussed earlier in connection with the analysis of the
objects, that the Tribunal must find the activities directed towards the planning and
execution of the good works do not directly advance religion.
Having concluded that the religious object was one of personal strengthening of faith which
amounted to the advancement of religion, the Tribunal turns to the actual activities to see
whether they directly facilitated that object. There was religious observance and education
and that clearly must qualify. Meetings to organize the activities began with prayers and,
although that is a common practice followed in many organizations, it had a special
importance in the context of the religious object of this body. Episcopal authority was
accepted, but it was supervision with a light touch rather than close control. The steps the
Knights took, on the premises, to become better informed lay leaders did, to an extent,
complement the religious education that took place. So, some activities clearly directly
facilitated the advancement of religion, but, from the evidence, it is also clear that the main
use was to plan in a businesslike way how to facilitate their good works object. This was a
lay order rather than a religious order and that important use for the organization and
execution of good works was not a qualifying use for the advancement of religion. On
balance, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the activities, although highly meritorious,
sufficiently directly assisted the advancement of religion to qualify.
Each year, the hereditament was used in connection with a religious retreat for girls from
St. Louise's Comprehensive School who brought their own teachers and religious
educators. For about 3 evenings religious education and guidance was given.
The
retreats were a use by the school, but Members did assist. The Tribunal's view is that
although the school was disqualified from charitable exemption as an occupier (Article 41
para (6)), it may reasonably be presumed to be a charity and the use it made would appear
to be a use for charitable purposes of a charity (sub-para (c) (ii)). Although apparently
- 12 -
educational and advancing religion, the Tribunal must conclude that it was not a use within
the stated main objects of the Knights (sub-para (d)).
The Tribunal must conclude that the hereditament was not used wholly or mainly for the
charitable religious object.
Church Hall or Chapel Hall
Section 1(1) of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1956 provided
for the distinguishment as exempt of any hereditament consisting of
"a church hall, chapel hall or similar building belonging to or held by a religious body,
so long as that hall or building is used mainly or exclusively for purposes connected
with that body".
The 1972 Rates Order re-enacted that Act with amendments and the provision as it
appears in Article 41 of the 1977 Rates Order refers to any hereditament which consists of
....
"a church hall, chapel hall or similar building occupied by a religious body and used
for purposes connected with that body or for purposes of any charity;
..........
together .... with buildings ancillary thereto."
When the 1972 Rates Order re-enacted the 1956 Act, the requirement for 'tenure' by a
religious body was amended to 'occupation' by a religious body and the scope of qualifying
user was widened. Although, to qualify, a hall must be occupied by a religious body, it is
not necessary that it should be a 'charitable' religious body.
In Mageean v COV [1960] NI 141 C.A., which concerned the Catholic chaplaincy at Queens
University, Belfast, it was held that "connected with," were words of wide import which
would, for example, cover the activities of all kinds of subordinate organizations whose
ultimate purpose was "to further the work or meet the needs of a group or community of
worshippers...". A hall, although occupied by a religious body and used for purposes
connected with that body, would not necessarily qualify for exemption; the further
requirement in the 1956 Act remains: it must be "a church hall, chapel hall or similar
building". These words were retained and the Tribunal considers they remain not
surplusage nor meaningless and the principles at the heart of Mageean are still relevant.
In this case there is no connection with a specific place of public worship but many of the
activities were of the nature of those to be found taking place in a church or chapel hall.
- 13 -
Mageean sets out two ways to test whether such a hall has a church or chapel hall-like
character. One is a link with a group of worshippers (per MacDermott LCJ), the other is
direct supervision and control by a Church (per Black LJ). A hall may be occupied by a
religious body and, although used for purposes connected with that body, lack a sufficiently
close link with the element of a group of worshippers, or supervision and control by a
church to qualify as a church hall.
As previously indicated, the Tribunal finds that, although there were, of course, links with
the Church, there was insufficient direct control or supervision by the Church for the Knights
to qualify as a subordinate organization under its control.
When the Tribunal then addresses the question of whether there is a community of
worshippers, it sees that as a requirement that the occupying body is such a group or
perhaps an umbrella organization for such groups. Plainly this body is not, because the
purpose for which Knights gather together in groups, here or elsewhere in houses or hotels,
is not for the purpose of worship but with the object of doing, not worshipping. Where there
was worship, although important, that was a subsidiary activity.
Religious Body
“It is a trite saying that the law is life, not logic. But it is, I think, conspicuously true of
the law of charity that it has been built up not logically but empirically.”
per Lord Simonds in Gilmour v Coats [1949] A.C. 426, 448-9
"Religious body" is not defined in the statute and, consistent perhaps with that approach of
the courts in this branch of the law, there appears to have been a reluctance to lay down
any test or series of tests which would define a religious body.
"It seems to me that two of the essential attributes of religion are faith and worship;
faith in a god and worship of that god."
Barralet [1980] 3 All ER 918, per Dillon J. at 924.
Although the Knights clearly have religion at their heart and their faith is not in question, it
was not a body that, in the ordinary course of their work, gathered together as a main
activity, either as a whole, in Councils or other grouping, with the object of worship. On
balance and it is only on balance, the Tribunal finds there was insufficient emphasis on
worship by the body, for the Knights to be regarded as a religious body.
Summary
The principal conclusions of the Tribunal are as follows.
- 14 -
Although the organizational and structural trail was not followed to a conclusion, the
Commissioner accepted the identification of the hereditament and made no suggestion that
the body was established or conducted for profit. These matters were not before the
Tribunal.
In summary, the Knights had three main objects. One was to provide practical assistance
to help those in need in the community, another was to sustain their own faith both
individually and as a group and the third was to provide leadership in the lay community.
There was linkage between the three but all three were distinct main objects.
The activities of the Knights at the hereditament included the organization of practical
activities of benefit to others in the community, fellowship, education and religious
observances.
The hereditament was not a chapel hall or similar building occupied by a religious body.
That was because there was no connection with a specific place of public worship, no
sufficiently close link with a group of worshippers or supervision and control by a church
and the Knights did not qualify as a religious body. Therefore Article 41(2)(b)(ii) does not
apply.
The Knights were not a body established for charitable purposes only and, in particular the
advancement of religion, the body was not a registered charity, it was not bound by
charitable trusts only and its main objects were not all charitable. Although the
hereditament was used in a meritorious way, it was not used wholly or mainly for charitable
purposes. Therefore Article 41(2)(c) does not apply.
The main objects were not all charitable, and in particular were not the advancement of
religion. Therefore Article 41(2)(d) does not apply.
For the reasons stated above, the Appeal must fail but it is appropriate to endorse the
general observation made on behalf of the Commissioner. He accepted that the Order was
a group of well-meaning noble people bound together to do good works out of religious
conviction.
Costs
At a further Hearing on costs, Mr Terence Brady of Campbell & Caher, Solicitors appeared
for the Appellant. Mrs Ann Kyle, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the Respondent.
- 15 -
Mrs Kyle applied for costs and submitted that although the Appellant carried out good works
there was no reason to deviate from the usual rule that costs should follow the event.
Mr Brady submitted that the case really did have to be heard because of its complexity and
the Tribunal did find a charitable element in the Appellant’s works. The appeal was
hampered by the wording of their constitution which would now be redrafted.
The Tribunal is not without sympathy for the Appellant but is not persuaded there is
sufficient justification to depart from the usual rule.
The Tribunal orders that the Appellant pays the Respondent’s costs. Such costs in default
of agreement to be taxed by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal on the High Court Scale.
ORDERS ACCORDINGLY
19th August 1998
M R CURRY FRICS FSVA IRRV ACI.Arb
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Appearances:
John Stewart of Counsel instructed by Messrs Campbell & Caher for the Appellant.
Stephen Shaw of Counsel instructed by the Crown Solicitor for the Respondent.
- 16 -