Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T03:10:24.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Response to Professor Norman Doe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2021

Charles George
Charles George*
Affiliation:
Dean of the Arches and Auditor 2009–2020
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Personally, I am feeling both buoyed up, and also a bit deflated, as a result of Norman's lecture (and the accompanying Ecclesiastical Law Journal article, to which the lecture is just an hors d'oeuvre). Buoyed up that, according to Oughton's treatise of 1728, in the seat of justice the dean should be addressed as Domine Judex or more frequently Domine Decane. Either will do excellently for the future! Deflated because, while Dean Phillimore's letters patent as Dean of the Arches recognised his ‘sound doctrine, good morals, purity of conscience’, my own were, probably rightly, considerably less effusive.

Keywords

Court of Archessupervisory jurisdiction of High Courtdoctrinal mattersprecedent
Type
Comment
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 342 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Ecclesiastical Law Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This comment is based on the response and vote of thanks delivered by the author after Professor Norman Doe's lecture, ‘The Court of Arches: its jurisdiction and jurisprudence – entirely settled?’, given at St Mary-le-Bow Church on 20 November 2019, a version of which is printed above, pp 322–341.

References

2 Byrne, M and Bush, G (eds), St Mary-le-Bow: a history (Barnsley, 2007)Google Scholar.

3 Logan, F and Eckhardt, C, ‘Fragments from a lost Court of Arches act book, 1445–1446’, (2015) 77 Medieval Studies 183–201Google Scholar, available at <https://pims.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ms77-183.pdf>, accessed 26 May 2021.

4 [2019] Fam 343.

5 G H Newsom and G L Newsom, Faculty Jurisdiction of the Church of England (second edition, London 1993), p 7.

6 [2012] 1 AC 663.

7 Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited [1944] 1 KB 718.

8 In re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, at para 85, citing In re Lapford (Devon) Parish Church [1955] P 205.

9 In re Lapford, citing a Privy Council decision of 1892, Read v Bishop of Lincoln [1892] AC 644 PC.

10 Read v Bishop of Lincoln at para 655.

11 Doe, N, The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1996), p 156CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Re Sam Tai Chan (sub nom re St Chad's, Bensham) [2017] Fam 68.