The petitioners (incumbent, churchwardens and a telecoms company) petitioned for a faculty and licence for the installation of telecommunications equipment in the church. One of the several objectors became a party opponent and required the petition to be resolved at a hearing. After the petition was listed for a hearing of the petitioners’ application for a stay, the petition was withdrawn, citing the need for planning approval and the Telecommunications Code of December 2017. The party opponent applied for a costs order. Following unsuccessful negotiations, directions for a hearing on costs were given, although, by consent, the matter was dealt with on paper. The petitioners failed substantially to comply with directions or an order for evidence and written submissions.

The court found that some of the petitioners’ conduct had been unreasonable so as to incur unnecessary costs. This included the Parochial Church Council's failure to take an active role in discussions with the party opponent; failing to co-operate with the party opponent on procedural matters; failure to enter discussions over costs; and the timing and manner in which the petition was withdrawn. Taking a broad-brush approach, 50 per cent of the party opponent's costs were attributable to the petitioners’ unreasonable conduct, and they were ordered to pay that proportion of his costs after a summary assessment. [DW]