Jensen v Brisbane City Council

The applicants, Jensen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Brisbane City Council to deny their land an exemption from rates. The Council had decided that the land, which the Brethren used for religious services, was used for private congregational worship and thus was not exempt from general rates. The applicants argued that the land was used for public worship as evidenced by signs indicating it was a “Brethren’s Meeting Room Place of Public Religious Worship” and the provision of a means for visitors to obtain details of meeting times. The applicants also pointed out that visitors who appeared well disposed and appropriately dressed were admitted to all but one of the services. The central issue for the court was whether the land was used for public worship, which would entitle it to an exemption from rates under Queensland legislation.

The court examined the evidence regarding the nature of the religious services held on the land. It noted that there were signs indicating the land was a place of public religious worship and that visitors were generally admitted to the services. The court also considered the testimonies of individuals who had attended the services and described the atmosphere as one of public worship. The court found that the Brethren’s use of the land for religious services was indeed for public worship. The court emphasised that the term “public” did not necessarily mean that the services were open to the general public, but rather that the services were open to anyone who met the Brethren’s criteria for entry. The court also noted that the Brethren had made efforts to provide information about the services to the public, which supported the characterisation of the services as public worship.

Given the findings, the court set aside the Council’s decision not to include the applicants’ land in the schedule of exempt properties. The court referred the applicants’ application for exemption from rates back to the Council for further consideration in accordance with the law. The court also declared that during the relevant period, the applicants had used the land for public worship. The orders required the Council to reconsider the applicants’ application for exemption from rates, taking into account the court’s findings regarding the nature of the religious services held on the land. The decision underscored the importance of the criteria used to determine whether land used for religious services qualifies for a rates exemption under Queensland legislation.