The petition proposed several items of reordering. The Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting to one specific item, namely, the treatment of the Victorian plain black and red tiling in the nave of the Grade II* church. The Chancellor was satisfied as to the suitability of the remaining items, and this judgment is mainly directed at the one contentious item. The petitioners contended that the Victorian tiles needed to be removed to allow the replacement of all the flooring in the nave, in conjunction with the proposed new underfloor heating, in order to achieve a sufficient heat output. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all items in the petition, except in respect of the stone floor finish. He directed that as many of the original tiles as possible should be salvaged and re-laid with as many suitable reproduction tiles as may be required.

Faculty granted for votive candle stand. Judgment contains a discussion as to the legality of the use of votive candles in church.

The proposed reordering works included removal of some pews; alterations to the low wall between nave and chancel; creation of storage units in the Berkeley Chapel; raised platform in front of the choir and new nave altar; display cabinets near font; servery; toilets; glazing of tower arch and a new screen wall in front of the tower. The main object was to provide a more welcoming and useful space, especially for large gatherings. There were several objectors to the proposals, but no parties opponent. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the works.

The Archdeacon of Dorking applied for a restoration order in respect of a vault, covered by a marble slab, constructed in the churchyard by the previous incumbent as a place of interment for himself and his mother. The grounds for the application were that the place in question was subject to a closing order rendering future burials unlawful, that the construction of the vault was in contravention of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 and that the placing of the memorial was performed without the sanction of a faculty. The Archdeacon therefore sought an order for the removal of the vault. The respondent claimed that he had acquired rights of burial from the successors of the person to whom rights were originally granted by faculty in 1915, and that those rigths were unaffected by the closing order. The Chancellor determined that the respondent did not lawfully have the rights originally granted and that the marble slab shold be removed and the vault filled in with earth, rather than have the vault dismantled.

Several items of reordering were proposed, in order to make the space in the church more flexible for church and community groups and events. Objections were received as to the reordering generally and also as to lack of detail in some of the proposals. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the pews and their replacement with unupholstered chairs to be approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee; a toilet; a kitchen; insulation of the roof; upgrading of doors; and tower repairs. He refused to grant a faculty for secondary glazing and a replacement heating system, owing to lack of detailed information provided by the petitioners.

Faculty granted for the exhumation of cremated remains and their reinterment in a family grave in the nearby cemetery, even though the remains had not been interred in a casket, but poured into a hole in the ground.

The person whose cremated remains were the subject of the petition had lived in London and had died suddenly at the age of 56. His family had been persuaded by a close friend of the deceased, who lived next to the churchyard in Uggeshall in Suffolk, to have the deceased ashes interred in the churchyard there. The family subsequently fell out with the friend after, as they alleged, he caused a motor accident, as a result of which one family member was admitted to hospital and another was treated for shock. The friend never acknowledged responsibility for the accident. The family then felt it difficult to visit the grave overlooked by the former friend’s house. They therefore wished to have the cremated remains exhumed and reburied in London, giving as their reasons the rift, the desire to create a family grave and the difficulty in visiting Uggeshall for the surviving family. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, as he considered that none of these reasons were sufficiently exceptional to justify exhumation.

In 2016 the Chancellor of the Diocese of Chester granted a faculty for the proposed new church centre. An application was subsequently made by the objectors to the Chancery Court of York for leave to appeal. By an Order dated 20 December 2016, the Auditor of the Chancery Court gave leave to appeal on only one of the grounds put forward by the objectors. The appeal to the Chancery Court of York was later withdrawn as the result of a Consent Order.

In 2015 a petition was presented in the Diocese of Chester, seeking permission to construct a new church centre at Upton St. Mary at a cost of £1.6m. This would involve the demolition of an adjacent hall. There were objections. On 30 November 2015 the Chancellor gave an interim judgment dealing with the question of whether the adjacent building was within the curtilage of the church. The Chancellor concluded that it was, and so it was within his jurisdiction. For the chancellor's full judgment, see Re St. Mary Upton [2016] ECC Chr 3.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the proposed new church centre. Following the judgment an application was made by the objectors to the Chancery Court of York for leave to appeal. By an Order dated 20 December 2016, the Auditor of the Chancery Court gave leave to appeal on only one of the grounds put forward by the objectors. The appeal to the Chancery Court of York was subsequently withdrawn as the result of a Consent Order. See Re St. Mary Upton (or Overchurch) (Order) [2016] ECCY 1.