Contract of service - Church - Claimant being minister of Methodist church

Preston v President of the Methodist Church: CA (Civ Div) (Lord Justices Maurice Kay (vice-president), Longmore and Sir David Keene): 20 December 2011

In 2003, the claimant was ordained as a minister of the Methodist church following a period of time on probation. In 2006, she was appointed to the post of superintendant minister. In 2009, she submitted a letter of resignation. She subsequently commenced proceedings in the employment tribunal (the tribunal) alleging unfair constructive dismissal.

Her claim raised the preliminary issue of whether she was an employee of the church within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal considered the preliminary issue at a pre-hearing review. It considered itself to be bound by the principles laid down in Methodist Conference (President) v Parfitt ([1983] 3 All ER 747) and held that the claimant was not an employee of the church and dismissed her claim. She appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which allowed her appeal, finding that, on the evidence, her contract had been one of service. It concluded that the tribunal had been wrong simply to follow Parfitt in the light of the more recent decision of Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland ([2006] 4 All ER 1354). Essentially, it held that Percy had impliedly overruled Parfitt. The church appealed.

The church submitted, inter alia, that the EAT had erred, in particular in failing to carry out a proper analysis of the role of the defendant Methodist Conference. Consideration was given to article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appeal would be dismissed.

The EAT had not erred in its analysis of Parfitt and Percy and had been correct in law to have found the relationship in the instant case to have been contractual. On the facts, the EAT had carefully considered all relevant matters. There had been no legal error in its approach or its conclusion. It had reached the correct result by an application of well-known principles.

Further, the EAT had been correct to hold that the instant case was not one where the evidence established that the existence of a contract of employment between the church and a minister was contrary to its tenets, and it could not conceive that any claim within the jurisdiction of the tribunal would require it to determine disputed issues of doctrine (see [22], [26], [28], [34], [39]-[40] of the judgment). Decision of Employment Appeal Tribunal UKEAT/0219/10/DM affirmed.

Oliver Hyams (instructed by Pothecary Witham Weld) for the employee; John Bowers QC and James Bax (instructed by Nalders) for the employer.