The petitioner, who had lived in the parish all his life, wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for 25 years. According to the vicar, there was space in the churchyard for burials for a period of 5 to 10 years. There was also an extra piece of land, currently used as a recreation area, which could be brought into use and accommodate burials for a further 50 years. In 2023, the Parochial Church Council decided not to support any further reservations of grave spaces. The Chancellor decided, in view of the petitioner's life expectancy being 7-10 years, owing to paralysis following an accident, and for pastoral reasons, to grant a faculty reserving a grave for a period of 7 years, so that no-one else with a right of burial would be prejudiced by the grant before the space for further burials was full. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for an extension during the seventh year.

The petition proposed replacing the existing pew benches with new moveable pew benches by the ecclesiastical furniture designer Luke Hughes, and retaining the best examples of the current pews by their removal to the gallery. Historic England and the Victorian Society submitted objections, but did not become parties opponent.  The Chancellor granted a faculty. The pews introduced following the rebuilding of the church (known as "the Actors' Church") in 1795-6 had been adapted in a reordering in 1871-2, and were now in a very poor state of repair. The Chancellor considered that any harm to the architectural interest of the church would be low and the harm to the historical interest would be moderate. He found that the petitioners had made a convincing case for the proposals. The church would benefit from the introduction of moveable pew benches, which would provide improved seating and allow greater use of the church for services, events, concerts and commercial hiring.

The petition contained a number of reordering proposals designed to allow the church and parish room to work together or to be used independently of each other and to provide better facilities and a more flexible and attractive space within the church for use by the congregation and the wider community. There was an objection to the moving of the war memorial, in order to unblock the original north porchway and create a better access to the parish room. The Chancellor determined that there was a strong justification for the proposals and he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the demolition of the church on grounds of health and safety, as it might be possible to secure the safety of the church by remedial measures.

The petitioner, on behalf of herself and her six siblings, sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of her brother's cremated remains from their parents' grave and reinterment in a nearby new grave. The deceased's daughter, believing it had been her father's wish to be interred with his parents, had arranged the interment without consulting the deceased's siblings, who only learned about the interment after it had taken place. It caused them great distress that there had been another interment in their parents' grave. The Chancellor was satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation, as the grave had "become a focus of disquiet and grievance amongst the family members with a real degree of distress to some."

The Vicar General & Chancellor granted a faculty for a memorial with a curved top and eccentric scalloped sides. Although the design was outside the churchyards regulations, he considered that the design was both tasteful and appropriate.

The petitioners sought approval for the erection of a memorial to an autistic child who had died in a therapeutic hot tub. The proposed memorial comprised an upright stone, including colours associated with the Autism Society, and kerb stones. The Vicar General granted a faculty: ". The grave is surrounded by a number of others in a distinct section of the graveyard at St. Paul’s Foxdale, many of which already have kerbs . . . I accept that there is a compelling reason for authorising the inclusion of colours referring to the Autism Society."

Reordering proposals included: a glazed entrance lobby; a welcome area; a room for a crèche during services; a meeting room; a kitchen; and toilets. The works involved moving the rood screen and the font. The main area of contention was the moving of the rood screen, which was a war memorial. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposals included the removal of two pews from the west end of the Grade II church and four from the north aisle, and the reduction in width of a further pew. The reasons for the proposals were to create: (a) a more useable space for a growing number of young families; (b) an area where some of the congregation can sit and enjoy refreshments after a service; (c) an area close to the main entrance which can accommodate noticeboards on which to communicate information; and (d) an area where a wheelchair can be positioned which is not at the rear of the church. Faculty granted.

The petitioner wished to replace a memorial stone commemorating one parent with a new black granite stone commemorating both parents, the second parent having died recently. The parish priest and Parochial Church Council objected, as the specification was outside the diocesan churchyards regulations, notwithstanding that there were several black granite memorials already in the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory towards the family concerned if a faculty were refused when there were already so many black granite memorials in the churchyard.