GovWire

Paragraph 11 of Sch 5 LGFA 1988 provides:-

11 (1) A hereditament is exempt to the extent that it consists of any of the following:-

(a) a place of public religious worship which belongs to the Church of England or the Church in Wales (within the meaning of the Welsh Church Act 1914) or is for the time being certified as required by law as a place of religious worship;

(b) a church hall, chapel hall or similar building used in connection with a place falling within paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in that place.

11 (2) A hereditament is exempt to the extent that it is occupied by an organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in a place falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) above and:-

(a) is used for carrying out administrative or other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship in such a place; or

(b) is used as an office or for office purposes, or for purposes ancillary to its use as an office or for office purposes.

11 (3) In this paragraph office purposes include administration, clerical work and handling money; and clerical work includes writing, book-keeping, sorting papers or information, filing, typing, duplicating, calculating (by whatsoever means), drawing and the editorial preparation of matter for publication.

This is rather a complex section of legislation so we will consider each section in turn below.

This wording consists of two separate concepts i.e. religious worship and that it takes place in public. Each have a distinct history in caselaw.

3.1 Religious worship

The words a place of religious worship were previously to be taken as meaning places to which people come to do reverence to or for the veneration of God (not solely the Christian God). See R v Register General, ex parte Segerdal and Church of Scientology of California [1970] RA 439:

"worship which must have some at least of the following characteristics: submission to the object worshipped, veneration of the object, praise, thanksgiving, prayer and intercession.

However following the Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of Hodkin and another) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77, [2013] All ER (D) 100, Lord Neuberger made the following observations:

"51. Unless there is some compelling contextual reason for holding otherwise, religion should not be confined to religions which recognise a supreme deity. First and foremost, to do so would be a form of religious discrimination unacceptable in todays society. It would exclude Buddhism, along with other faiths such as Jainism, Taoism, Theosophy and part of Hinduism.

And at Para 57:

"Of the various attempts made to describe the characteristics of religion, I find most helpful that of Wilson and Deane JJ. For the purposes of PWRA, I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankinds place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by the application of science. I prefer not to use the word supernatural to express this element, because it is a loaded word which can carry a variety of connotations. Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankinds nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula.

Para 60:

"On the approach which I have taken to the meaning of religion, the evidence is amply sufficient to show that Scientology is within it; but there remains the question whether the chapel at 146 Victoria Street is a place of meeting for religious worship.

Para 64:

"There is a further significant point. If, as I have held, Scientology comes within the meaning of a religion, but its chapel cannot be registered under PWRA because its services do not involve the kind of veneration which the Court of Appeal in Segerdal considered essential, the result would be to prevent Scientologists from being married anywhere in a form which involved use of their marriage service. They could have a service in their chapel, but it would not be a legal marriage, and they could have a civil marriage on other approved premises under section 26(1)(bb) of the Marriage Act, but they could not incorporate any form of religious service because of the prohibition in section 46B(4). They would therefore be under a double disability, not shared by atheists, agnostics or most religious groups. This would be illogical, discriminatory and unjust. When Parliament prohibited the use of any religious service on approved premises in section 46B(4), it can only have been on the assumption that any religious service of marriage could lawfully be held at a meeting place for religious services by registration under PWRA.

Para 65:

"I would overrule the decision in Segerdal; allow the appeal; declare that the chapel at 146 Queen Victoria Street is a place of meeting for religious worship within section 2 of PWRA; and order the Registrar General to register the chapel under section 3 of PWRA and as a place for the solemnisation of marriages under section 41(1) of the Marriage Act. It is unnecessary in these circumstances to consider the arguments advanced by the appellants under the Equality Act and the European Convention.

This decision recognises that religious worship or belief does no longer have to venerate a supreme deity. However a ceremony of instruction or discussion of a philosophy is not religious worship.

3.2 Public Religious Worship - The Invitation Test

Certification as a place of worship is covered below at 5.2 but it is important to note here that the mere act of certification does not of itself entitle any part of the hereditament to exemption under 11(1)(a); to be exempt, there must also be use as a place of public religious worship.

A consideration of the distinction between a place of religious worship, as certified, and that of public religious worship leads to the concept of the invitation test. This comes from the decision in Broxtowe Borough Council v Birch & Others (Trustees of the Arnesby Trust) and Moffatt (VO) CA [1983] RA/1, a case which decided that exemption was not appropriate for a Christian sect where worship was not advertised to the public,

View the original news story