Methodist minister not an employee, Supreme Court rules

Methodist ministers are not employees and cannot sue for unfair dismissal, the Supreme Court has ruled.

An employment tribunal had rejected the claim by Haley Preston, formerly Moore, a Methodist minister in Cornwall. The EAT and the Court of Appeal accepted it.

In a ruling which could be applied to other ministers of religion, and potentially other religions, Lord Sumption said: "The primary considerations are the manner in which the minister was engaged, and the character of the rules or terms governing his or her service.

"But, as with all exercises in contractual construction, these documents and any other admissible evidence on the parties' intentions fall to be construed against their factual background.

"Part of that background is the fundamentally spiritual purpose of the functions of a minister of religion."

Delivering the leading judgment in President of the Methodist Conference v Preston [2013] UKSC 29, Lord Sumption said the manner in which a minister is engaged was "incapable of being analysed in terms of contractual formation".

He went on: "Neither the admission of a minister to full Connexion nor his or her ordination are themselves contracts.

"Thereafter, the minister's duties are not consensual. They depend on the unilateral decisions of the Conference."

Lord Sumption said the minister's stipend and manse depended only on admission into full Connexion and ordination, and the benefits continued until the minister was given leave of absence or retires.

In the same way, the minister's rights under the church's disciplinary scheme were the same whether they were ministers or lay members.

"Third, the relationship between the minister and the church is not terminable except by the decision of the Conference or its Stationing Committee or a disciplinary committee. There is no unilateral right to resign, even on notice."

Lord Sumption said the question of whether an arrangement was a legally binding contract depended on the intention of the parties.

"The question whether an arrangement is a legally binding contract depends on the intentions of the parties. The mere fact that the arrangement includes the payment of a stipend, the provision of accommodation and recognised duties to be performed by the minister, does not without more resolve the issue.

"The question is whether the parties intended these benefits and burdens of the ministry to be the subject of a legally binding agreement between them."

Lord Sumption said that if the EAT and Court of Appeal's conclusion on the existence of a contract was correct, it would mean that "almost any arrangements for the service of a minister of religion would be contractual unless the minister was a non-stipendiary volunteer".

He said both the lower courts had over-analysed the House of Lords ruling in Percy and paid "insufficient attention" to the Methodist Deed of Union and standing orders.

Lord Sumption allowed the appeal and restored the employment tribunal's order dismissing Preston's claim. Lords Wilson and Carnwath agreed. Lord Hope agreed, for his own reasons, but Lady Hale dissented.

"Everything about this arrangement looks contractual, as did everything about the relationship in the Percy case," she said.