The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for himself and his wife. They lived in the parish and had relatives buried in the churchyard, including their daughter, who had died in a road traffic accident at the age of 26. The Parochial Church Council did not support the application, as it had exercised a policy for some time of not supporting grave reservations. It was estimated that the churchyard would be full in 18 years' time. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

The parish sought permission for the removal of most of the remaining pews, in order to create more flexible and informal spaces for family, musical and other activities. The Victorian Society questioned the need to remove the pews. A private individual objected on grounds of insufficient consultation; a reduction in seating capacity; cost; and whether there was a need for the pews to be removed. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case and he granted a faculty. Any replacement seating would have to be approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

The petitioners sought a confirmatory faculty for works carried out some years before, including two areas of temporary reordering at the east end of the nave and the east end of the south aisle, the introduction of a grand piano, the removal of pews at the west end of the north aisle to allow for the introduction of a timber carving of the nativity by Graham Clarke and the making permanent of an audio visual installation. The Commissary General granted a faculty, subject to a condition, inter alia, that the petitioners should discuss with the Diocesan Advisory Committee ways of mitigating the visually intrusive reflective aspect of the audio-visual screens.

After the death of Mr. John Parnaby, his mother commissioned a memorial and was reimbursed the cost from Mr. Parnaby's estate. The petitioner was Mr. Parnaby's partner and had lived with him for 25 years. She was upset that her connection to Mr. Parnaby was not mentioned in the inscription on the stone and petitioned for permission to amend the inscription to refer to their relationship, but without any consultation with the Parnaby family, owing to a rift. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, on the basis that, as stated by the Chancellor in the judgment in Re St. Giles Sheldon [2022] ECC Bir 1, " ... the Anglican teaching concerning graves is that they should not be a focus for discord and should not be disturbed unless there is clear reason that should happen".

The petitioner sought a faculty giving her the right to be buried in the same grave as her late partner. There had been a rift in the past between the petitioner and the deceased's mother. (See Re St. Peter Bourton-on-Dunsmore [2022] ECC Cov 6, where the same petitioner sought to have reference to herself added to her partner's memorial (commissioned by his mother), but her application was refused.) In the present case, the deceased's mother did not object to the petitioner having the right to be buried in the same grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Staff of the Leeds City Council instructed its workmen to erect a fence along the perimeter of the closed churchyard (for which the Council was responsible), to prevent a recurrence of recent anti-social behaviour, involving youths standing on the churchyard wall and throwing stones at traffic. The Council did so without first seeking a faculty or planning consent from its own planning department, even though a meeting had been arranged for interested parties to discuss the best fencing solution. The Chancellor took "a dim view of the petitioner’s conduct in this matter, notwithstanding that it may have originally been animated by an understandable sense of civic responsibility ... the execution of that good intention was characterised by ineptitude, discourtesy and illegality". However, notwithstanding the failings of the Council, the Chancellor decided that a Confirmatory Faculty should be granted.

The petitioners sought a faculty for an extensive re-ordering and refurbishment of the Grade II church. There were seventy objectors, of whom three became parties opponent. The Chancellor approved the proposals relating to reordering of the West Gallery; demolition of the redundant boiler house and building of an extension to provide a meeting room, kitchen and toilet facilities; reordering of the Chancel; glazing to the South Door; and refurbishment of the pulpit, but felt that the petitioners had not made out a sufficient case to justify the remaining items, including reordering of the pews; relocation and reordering of the font; removal of the pulpit; and removal of the organ.

The 2010 Faculty for reordering was amended to allow for certain consequential works, which included approval for the remodelling of the pulpit steps.

The Petitioner sought permission to move the font to a position in an area immediately to the west side of the main entrance to the church in the north wall and to remove three pews and install a redundant choir stall frontal in order to create a Baptistery area around the repositioned font. (This was a different proposal to the one contained in the 2010 petition for reordering.) The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty, as the proposal would fit in with and complement the changes for which permission had already been given.

In 2011 the petitioners applied for approval (which was granted) for the remodelling of the pulpit steps, having been refused in 2010 a faculty for the removal of the pulpit. They now applied for permission to permanently remove the pulpit from the church. The pulpit had in fact already been removed from the church in 2012 without authority. Reminding the petitioners of the rule of law, and that the removal of the pulpit was unlawful, the Chancellor determined that the arguments for removing the pulpit had not changed since 2010, when he refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the pulpit, and accordingly he now refused again to grant a faculty for its removal.