Church in UK Law

He argued that the Temple itself would be a church hall, chapel hall or similar building used in connection with the chapels, and therefore qualifying for exemption under (b). The short answer is that this Temple is not a church hall, chapel hall, nor a similar building. It is not in the least on the same footing as a church hall or chapel hall. It is a very sacred sanctuary, quite different from a building of that category.

I consider that there is a distinction between private or domestic or family worship on the one hand and public religious worship on the other. In my view the conception of public religious worship involves the coming together for corporate worship of a congregation or meeting or assembly of people, but I think that it further involves that the worship is in a place which is open to all properly disposed persons who wish to be present.

For this purpose the admission of the public means, I think, the admission of those members of the public who are reasonably suitable, who come in reverence not mockery, and who are prepared to behave in reasonable conformity to the requirements of the religion which they are visiting, for example, by covering their heads where that is required, or by removing their shoes on entering a mosque.

Furthermore, it is less likely on general grounds that Parliament intended to give exemption to religious services that exclude the public since exemptions from rating, though not necessarily consistent, show a general pattern of intention to benefit those activities which are for the good of the general public. All religious services that open their doors to the public may, in an age of religious tolerance, claim to perform some spiritual service to the general public.

It connotes to my mind a place of which the principal use is as a place where people come together as a congregation or assembly to do reverence to God. But, apart from exceptional cases of that kind, it seems to me the governing idea behind the words "place of meeting for religious worship" is that it should be a place for the worship of God. I am sure that would be the meaning attached by those who framed this legislation of 1855.

It appears to me that the issues in the present action cannot be adapted so as to circumvent the insuperable obstacle placed in the way of a fair trial of this action by the fact that the court must abstain from determining questions which lie at the heart of the case. I am of course well aware that a stay will deprive the Claimant of the opportunity to obtain vindication.

Next with regard to registration requirements on moving to another area, it is clear from reading the CIPU report in conjunction with Dr Chenciner's report and its appendices, that although the old Soviet propiska system has officially been abolished in Ukraine, something very similar to it is still in place. Moreover the registration is not computer based at a national level but depends upon local records.