The petitioners – who sought a faculty in relation to the installation of telecommunications equipment in the church tower – applied for security for costs against a party opponent who had failed to comply with directions as to the service of expert reports. Because the provisions of Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were concerned with costs being sought by defendants against claimants, and that was not analogous to the position where petitioners sought costs against a party opponent, the chancellor held that no assistance was to be gleaned from the CPR. Instead, the application was to be approached by applying the principles in rule 1(1) (overriding objective) and rule 1(4) (court's duty to manage cases) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015. Ordering security for costs against the party opponent would be a very serious step because, given her financial circumstances, it would in practice have the effect of debarring her from opposing the petition. The proportionate answer to resolving the competing interests of the parties in accordance with the overriding objective was therefore not to order that the party opponent give security for costs. This was so despite the fact that it was likely to mean that the petitioners would have to fund the costs of the hearing even if the court were to make an order for costs against the party opponent at the conclusion of the proceedings. This disadvantage to the petitioners was outweighed by the fact that making the order would have the effect of stifling the party opponent's objection. [Alexander McGregor]