A new religious movement can be studied through its teachings and organization. When its members ask a public authority to recognize a particular activity, another question arises about the meaning of religion under the law that governs that activity. A dispute about a wedding in a Scientology chapel in London made this question concrete in the 2013 case of Hodkin. UK Supreme Court case record for Hodkin · New religious movements as a sociological category
How a wedding raised a question about worship
Louisa Hodkin and Alessandro Calcioli wanted to marry at the Scientology chapel they attended on Queen Victoria Street. A trustee applied to have the chapel recorded under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. The Registrar General refused, relying on a 1970 Court of Appeal decision known as Segerdal. In that earlier case the court had taken an approach to worship that emphasized reverence for a deity or other object of veneration. The application brought the scope of that interpretation before the Supreme Court. UK Supreme Court case record for Hodkin · Hodkin judgment, especially paragraphs 50–65
What the Supreme Court decided
Lord Toulson explained that the statutory idea of religion could include a shared spiritual understanding that addresses humanity’s place in the universe and guides how its adherents live. He considered that a requirement to worship a supreme deity would exclude some traditions generally recognized as religions. The court also examined the activities in the chapel, where adherents took part in collective religious services. It held that the chapel qualified as a meeting place for religious worship under the 1855 Act and ordered registration for worship and for the solemnization of marriages. The ruling therefore had a concrete effect on the use of this building. Hodkin judgment, especially paragraphs 50–65
Why another law asked another question
A 2023 Upper Tribunal case considered whether parts of two London buildings used by the same religious organization qualified for exemption from non-domestic rates. The tribunal explained that Hodkin had dealt with religious worship, while the rating dispute required it to consider whether worship was public and how particular rooms were used. It considered evidence about the weekly Sunday service and access by members of the public. The chapel qualified for exemption under the relevant provision. Other areas had to be considered according to their own uses and the other provisions of the statute. Ricketts decision, Upper Tribunal, 2023
Conclusion
Hodkin shows how recognizing a practice as religious worship can change what a community may do in a particular place. The later rates case shows why the relevant activity and statutory language still matter. In sociology, the term new religious movement helps frame questions about a group’s formation. In a legal dispute, the court must decide the meaning of the words that govern the requested registration or exemption. Hodkin judgment, especially paragraphs 50–65 · Ricketts decision, Upper Tribunal, 2023 · New religious movements as a sociological category
Published by Ralf. About our editorial process.
