A faculty was sought for extensive reordering works. Part of the reason for the works was to allow the church to be used by the local Church of England school in particular and the community in general. The Victorian Society objected to the the laying of the proposed wooden floor, which would involve removing some Victorian floor tiles. The Church Buildings Council objected to the proposed new position for the font. Both the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council objected to the proposed new pew benches being upholstered. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the new pew benches should not be upholstered, but may have separate cushions, subject to the material being approved by the court.

The proposal was to retain permanently a Hauptwerk digital organ (belonging to Wakefield Cathedral), which was introduced into the church under an Archdeacon’s Licence for temporary minor re-ordering. The church already had a faculty in place for the removal and disposal of the pipe organ, with the proviso of having a suitable replacement option. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal, the Chancellor granted a faculty: "I am satisfied that the petitioners have discharged the burden on them of displacing the presumption that the Harrison and Harrison organ should be replaced with a pipe-organ. I am satisfied that they have considered the merits and demerits of alternatives to their preferred Hauptwerk solution, particularly the relative costs, and that their proposal is in all the circumstances a reasonable one in terms of their wishes, needs and resources."

The petitioners wished to increase the number of bells in the tower from 6 to 10, or alternatively to 8. The original 6 are heavy, precluding most women and young people from ringing them. For a number of reasons, the Chancellor had reservations about the proposals and refused to grant a faculty as sought, suggesting that the petitioners should seek a revised scheme and revised quotation from the bell-founders.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the installation of a retractable screen to be placed over the chancel arch of the church, being satisfied that this would be preferable to the current arrangement of standing a portable screen on boxes at the front of the nave, and that the works were likely to bring benefits which outweighed the general presumption that change should not be permitted.

The Chancellor determined that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the proposed exhumation of the cremated remains of a young man from the churchyard in Kenilworth for reinterment in the same grave as his late parents (or in the next grave) in a churchyard in Norfolk, the Chancellor noting similarities between the circumstamces in this case and those in the case of Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299.

The Rector and Churchwardens applied for a faculty for the removal from the churchyard of a mature lime tree, due to a risk of subsidence damage to an adjoining property, as advised by their retained arboriculturist. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to conditions which included a requirement that at least one replacement tree of a species, and at a location in the churchyard, to be approved by the archdeacon must be planted during the current, or the next, growing season after the felling of the lime tree.

The church had a growing reputation as a safe place for LGBTQIA+ people of faith. The parish priest and an assistant churchwarden petitioned for the introduction of a new altar frontal, the design of  which took the form of a Progress Pride image with a white cross upon it. There were nine objections to the petition and sixteen letters and emails in support of it. None of the objectors were 'interested persons' within the meaning of Rule 10.1.(a)-(g) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015. The Deputy Chancellor therefore had to decide, as a preliminary matter, under Rule 10.1.(h), whether any of the objectors had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the petition. He determined that three of the objectors had a sufficient interest, namely, a regular attender at the church (who was not on the church electoral roll) and two priests, who raised liturgical and doctrinal issues in their objections. One of the two priests was a priest in the Diocese of Leicester, and the other was a member of the General Synod and of the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England.

This judgment is supplementary to the preliminary judgment in Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 1, when the Chancellor had to give directions as to which of the nine people who had objected to the petition had a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the petition. The Chancellor had determined that three of the nine objectors had a sufficient interest. However, subsequent correspondence required the Chancellor to reconsider whether one of the three had a sufficient interest. He determined to give the person concerned a short period in which to provide further information before the Chancellor made a decision.

In his decision in Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 1, the Acting Chancellor concluded, as a preliminary issue, that three of the nine persons who submitted objections to the petition had a "sufficient interest". In this decision, the Acting Chancellor set aside his original order in so far as he now considered that one of those three objectors did not have a sufficient interest in the petition.

his judgment (which was preceded by three interim judgments with the neutral citations [2023] ECC Lei 1, [2023] ECC Lei 2 and [2023] ECC Lei 3, dealing with preliminary issues) relates to a petition for the introduction of a new altar frontal displaying the colours of the Progress Pride flag, the church having come to be regarded over time as a safe worshipping space for LGBTQIA+ people of faith. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: "The Progress Pride flag is not a Christian emblem ... it is a secular contemporary emblem used for many causes and contemporary discourse ... The focus, purpose and celebration of the Holy Communion is for all to come to Jesus and remember His sacrifice ... It is clear that there is not a unified belief that the proposed Altar frontal achieves this message of oneness in Christ".