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.

A faculty had been granted for the re-roofing of the chancel of the Grade II* church, subject to a condition that such of the existing tiles as were in good condition should be re-used, with the addition of new tiles matching the existing ones in colour, shape, size, and texture. The petitioners now sought an amendment of the faculty to allow for only new tiles to be used. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not agree to the removal of the condition, saying that a wholesale replacement of the tiles would involve a significant loss of historic fabric in circumstances where this was not necessary. The Chancellor refused to remove the condition.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a single storey extension to the 14th century Grade II* church to house a lavatory, a vestry for the clergy and choir and storage for robes; the provision of a kitchenette at the base of the west tower; the repositioning of a screen; and the re-siting of a memorial stone.

Faculty granted for WC and buffet bar in the north-west corner of the church, even though the work would result in a restricted view of a stained glass window.

The petition contained two proposals: (1) upgrading of the heating system, including demolishing a disused chimney stack; and (2) replacement of the pews with chairs. The rear portion of pews had been replaced with chairs in 2007. It was proposed that the heavier existing chairs would be brought to the front of the nave and any new stackable seating (the type proposed being the 'Alpha' chair) would be deployed behind. The Chancellor determined that the pews were not of major historic significance and that the needs of the worshipping congregation would be better served by modern, flexible seating, that would also allow wider use of the building by other groups and organisations. He therefore granted a faculty.