The Petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her parents-in-law exhumed from the churchyard of the now redundant church at Brownsover and reinterred in the churchyard where her late husband's remains were interred. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, as he could find no exceptional reason to justify him in doing so. In particular, he said that the fact that the churchyard at Brownsover was currently largely overgrown, was not a sufficient reason to justify the grant of a faculty.

The husband and wife petitioners sought permission to include on a memorial to the wife's father the words 'Dad' and 'Pap' . The Chancellor issued a judgment in which he refused permission, as he considered that informal terms of address were not generally suitable for use as a public record on a memorial. And whilst there were a few examples of similar words being used in other parts of the churchyard (none near the grave in question), the Chancellor took the view that so few breaches of the churchyards regulations did not justify allowing further breaches. However, following further representations from the petitioners, that there were already 34 examples in the churchyard of the use of informal descriptions, the Chancellor issued a revised judgment in which he gave permission for the use of the informal descriptions in this case.

The petitioner applied for a a confirmatory faculty permitting the continued presence in the churchyard of a memorial made of white marble 55 centimetres high in the shape of a cross, with some heart motifs and a brass plaque on it. The memorial did not comply with the churchyard regulations.  Neither the Diocesan Advisory Committee nor the Parochial Church Council approved of the memorial. The Chancellor dismissed the petition and directed that the stone should be removed by the petitioner within 2 months, in default of which the stone should be removed by the incumbent and churchwardens. However, the Chancellor gave the petitioner 14 days in which to apply in writing with reasons why the order should not be enforced and that the dismissal of the petition should remain on hold in the meantime.

Under the authority of a faculty granted in March 2021, the sale of a piece of surplus land adjoining the church was to be sold, together with a piece of land owned by the diocese, to a housing developer who proposed building nine houses. In September 2021, a further faculty application was made for permission to create a temporary compound for the developer on part of the churchyard where there were no marked graves. A parishioner objected to the proposal and became a party opponent. His main objection was that this would be an inappropriate  and disrespectful use of part of the consecrated curtilage of the church set aside for burials. Whilst expressing some sympathy for the objector's point of view, the Chancellor considered that, subject to there being a sufficient need for the compound, and adequate safeguards being put in place to protect existing graves, it was appropriate to grant permission for a limited period of 18 months, subject to conditions requiring no part of the compound to be within 5 metres of any marked graves, and subject also to surface reinstatement works being carried out by the developer at the end of the development.

The petitioner’s husband had died and was buried in the old part of the churchyard in 2020. In 2021, the petitioner applied for a faculty to reserve the adjoining grave space for her two sons, intending that the two graves would form a double family grave. She subsequently withdrew the petition. However, she arranged, without seeking permission, for kerbs to be set around her husband’s grave and the adjoining one, and for stones, pebbles and a planter to be laid within the kerbs, in anticipation of applying in due course for the reservation of the grave adjoining that of her husband’s. In 2022, the Parochial Church Council (PCC) passed a resolution not to support any more grave reservations. The Petitioner later applied for two faculties: (1) to retrospectively authorise the kerbs and stones; and (2) to reserve the grave adjoining her husband’s grave for herself. Notwithstanding the PCC resolution, and for the reasons stated in the judgment, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the reservation of the grave exclusively for the petitioner, conditional upon the petitioner first removing the kerbs and stones and re-grassing the area at her own expense.

The petitioner's late father had been buried in the churchyard in 2000. Her mother died in 2017, and the petitioner wished to carry out her mother's wishes to have kerbs placed around her father's grave and her mother's ashes scattered on the gravel. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to authorise kerbs and gravel to be placed on the grave. Although there were some other graves with kerbs in the churchyard, the grave in question was next to the footpath and the first in a long line of graves with no kerbs, and kerbs would make maintenance of the churchyard more difficult. The Chancellor also refused to allow the scattering of ashes, as being contrary to the churchyards regulations and Canon B 38 (4)(a).  Also, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1992 refers to the “burial” of cremated remains.

The petitioner wished to have the remains of her father, who died in 2012, exhumed and cremated and his ashes then taken for interment in a family grave in a consecrated Roman Catholic cemetery in Santa Ana in El Salvador, where he had been born and where almost all his remaining relatives lived. The petitioner stated that her father had originally come to England to improve his career as a doctor, but he had always intended to return to El Salvador. Also, he was a Roman Catholic and had no particular connection with Lilleshall and that it had been a mistake for him to have been buried there. It had always been the petitioner’s intention to “repatriate” her father’s remains, but certain circumstances had prevented her from doing so. The Parochial Church Council, by a majority, did not support the proposal. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty, noting the long-held desire for interment in the family grave and the circumstances which had previously prevented that from happening.

The petition proposed several items of reordering. The only contentious item was the removal of the Victorian font, which had not been used for many years. A Georgian font in the church is normally used for baptisms, owing to lack of sufficient space for families around the Victorian font. Following the removal of the font it was proposed to use the space as an area for children. The Victorian font would be placed either outside the church, or alternatively an offer could be accepted for it to be stored in Maxstoke Castle. Historic England and the Victorian Society did not favour placing the font in the churchyard, but they did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but required evidence to be obtained as to whether the placing of the font in the churchyard would result in severe damage due to weathering, in which case the Chancellor would direct that the font be stored in Maxstoke Castle.

Three siblings, who had moved away from the parish, applied for a faculty to reserve two grave spaces next to their mother's grave. At a meeting of seven members of the Parochial Church Council ("PCC"), when a vote on the request for reservations was taken, two couples voted against the proposal on various grounds, including that there were spaces left for only 10 years of burials; the applicants never attended the church or contributed to it;  and the PCC had a 'first-come-first-served' policy. The Chancellor was satisfied that the PCC had never passed a resolution for such a policy. He also said that the family's contributions to the life of the local community should be considered as of equal weight to any financial contributions which they could have, but did not in fact, make to the Church. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner's mother had died in 1991 and the family had had no choice but to follow the then policy of the PCC to have cremated remains interred close together in a double row with memorial tablets touching adjacent ones. Some years later the PCC changed its policy in an area where cremation plots were wider and interments were marked by upright stones. The petitioner's father did not like the area where his wife had been interred as the area looked paved, which he thought unseemly. He had arranged before he died in 2017 for his own remains to be interred in the new area. The petitioner wished to have his mother's cremated remains moved to his father's grave. The Chancellor decided that the combination of three circumstances - the family's unhappiness about the interment in 1991, the change in policy of the PCC, and the creation of a family grave by placing the wife's remains with those of her husband - justified him in granting a faculty.