The Rustat Memorial, Jesus College, Cambridge, Re (Costs) [2022] ECC Ely 5 (05 June 2022)

The Rustat Memorial, Jesus College, Cambridge, Re (Costs) [2022] ECC Ely 5 (05 June 2022)

The Deputy Chancellor found that, although there were criticisms of the College's conduct, its behaviour did not reach the threshold of unreasonableness required to justify a costs order. The College's actions, while open to criticism, were not so unreasonable as to have unnecessarily caused the parties opponent to incur additional costs. The general rule that parties bear their own costs in faculty proceedings was applied.

Parties
Petitioner: Jesus College, Cambridge; Parties Opponent: 65 parties opponent (objectors); Party Opponent: Professor Lawrence Goldman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Faculty Application / Costs Determination Following Refusal of Faculty
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs in Faculty Proceedings, Unreasonable Conduct, Listed Buildings, Heritage Memorials, Faculty Jurisdiction
Ecclesiastical Law Heritage Law Costs in Faculty Proceedings Unreasonable Conduct Listed Buildings Heritage Memorials Faculty Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jesus College, Cambridge

Petitioner

65 parties opponent (objectors)

Parties Opponent

Professor Lawrence Goldman

Party Opponent

Procedural Posture

Faculty Application / Costs Determination Following Refusal of Faculty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the College behaved unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether any unreasonable behaviour caused the parties opponent to incur additional costs unnecessarily
  3. 3 Whether an order for costs should be made against the College

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Chancellor found that, although there were criticisms of the College's conduct, its behaviour did not reach the threshold of unreasonableness required to justify a costs order. The College's actions, while open to criticism, were not so unreasonable as to have unnecessarily caused the parties opponent to incur additional costs. The general rule that parties bear their own costs in faculty proceedings was applied.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own legal costs; College to pay assessed court fees.