Local Faith Ltd, R (on the application of) v Registrar General for England & Wales

Registration under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 requires an identified single body or denomination of persons intending to use the building for religious worship. It is insufficient that the premises may be made available generally to religious groups from time to time. The statutory application form reflects that requirement by requiring identification of the congregation or assembly on whose behalf registration is sought. Where an application identifies a particular congregation which does not exist and has no intention to use the premises, the application cannot succeed.

Local Faith Ltd renewed its application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Registrar General’s refusal to register premises under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. The premises were intended, according to the claimant’s general business plan, to be available for hire by different religious groups. However, the application identified a Sunni-Muslim congregation as the intended user, although no such congregation existed. The central issue was whether the Act required a single identified body or denomination of worshippers to use, or intend to use, the building.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings was dismissed.
2. The Act was clear. Section 2 required the building to be a place of meeting for religious worship by an identified body or denomination of persons. It did not permit registration merely because premises were intended for general religious use by different groups.
3. The statutory language was consistent with the purpose of enabling particular religious groups outside the established church to have recognised buildings as bases for worship and community events.
4. The court regarded this construction as consistent with the interpretation of the Act in Hodkin v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2012] EWHC 3635, including the discussion at paragraph 63 of Lord Toulson’s judgment. The application form, produced under Schedule A, faithfully reflected the statutory requirement to identify the relevant congregation.
5. The challenge based on the alleged use of the wrong test was therefore not arguable. The rationality challenge also could not succeed. The form identified a Sunni-Muslim congregation which did not exist and had no intention to use the building. The claimant’s broader business plan did not cure the misleading contents of the application.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.