Oxford Consistory Court: Boydell Ch, June 1999
The question of costs was determined on written representations, a faculty having previously been granted (see (1999) 5 Ecc LJ 306). The petitioners were content that each party bear its own costs. The solicitors for the party opponent submitted, assuming, as we do, that costs follow the event, in principle our client accepts that he must contribute to the costs of the other side and, possibly, of the chancellor'. Despite this offer, which the chancellor regarded as paradoxical, he made no order as to the parties' own costs. As to the court costs, the chancellor cited the guidelines in Re St Mary the Virgin, Sherborne [1996] Fam 63 at 70 and noted that the Arches Court nevertheless emphasised that 'the consistory court has a discretion in each case'. The Chancellor found that the party opponent had not acted unreasonably but that some of the six objections were less weighty than others and that consideration of the less weighty grounds had occupied the time of the court. Mindful of the mitigation on the part of the party opponent, the offer to make a contribution to the petitioners' costs (no part of which he was ordered to pay) and those of the court, the chancellor ordered that the court costs be borne as to two-thirds by the petitioners and one-third by the party opponent.
Note: This case is interesting for the gloss on the Sherborne judgment introducing a concept of'weightiness' ojobjection in addition to the 'unreasonable behaviour' of the objector. It is also illustrative of the fact that the practice of the consistory court on costs is not as well known as it might be, even amongst solicitors. In another case, Re All Saints, Churchill (Oxford Consistory Court: Boydell Ch, July 1999), three parties opponent sought an order at a directions court effectively indemnifying them from any order of costs. This was refused. The Ecclesiastical Judges Association is carrying out a consultation process aimed at producing a guidance note on costs.
(2000) 5 Ecc LJ 387
