The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the exhumation of cremated remains from one family grave and re-interment in another family grave, the remains having been interred 28 years previously.

In 2010, there had been a major reordering approved by faculty. This involved replacing the dark wood podium, altar, credence table, lectern and choir chairs in the chancel with new furniture in a light oak. The Parochial Church Council now wished to replace the dark pine nave pews with upholstered light oak chairs, partly because of the poor condition of many of the pews and partly to permit more flexible use of the church. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the pews, and they also objected to the idea of upholstered chairs, as did the Ancient Monuments Society and the Church Buildings Council. The Chancellor was satisfied that the removal of the pews would not materially harm the interior of the church and would blend in better with the light oak furniture in the chancel. He was also persuaded that the proposed chairs were suitable for flexible use of the church, and the proposed colour would fit well with other colours in the church. He therefore granted a faculty

The petitioners wished  to remove fifteen of the nineteen pews in the nave, retaining two pews in the nave and two in the chancel, and introduce fifty lightweight stackable wooden chairs, some with arms and some with vinyl padded seats. The pews were acquired from a boarding school chapel in the 1990s. The Chancellor determined that the pews were 'lacking in connection to the church and not lending any particular style to it', so that in removing the pews there would be no harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Notwithstanding the amenity societies not being in favour of some of the seats being padded, the Chancellor decided that the effect of beige padding on light teak wooden frames would be minimal, and she therefore granted a faculty.

Two Faculty Petitions, each seeking exhumation of cremated remains from an area where access was difficult for an elderly relative, and reinterment in a more accessible location about six feet away. Faculty refused in each case, the Chancellor being unable to find sufficient justification to grant a Faculty within the guidelines set out in the Court of Arches decision in Re Blagdon, but suggesting that the memorials might be moved to the alternative locations, so as to provide easier access and so that the elderly relatives could choose for their own cremated remains to be interred in due course either in the graves of their loved ones or beneath the newly moved memorials.

The petitioner, who was aged 81 and used a wheelchair, found access to her mother’s grave in Gunton churchyard very difficult, as the grave was a good way back from the churchyard path. She therefore applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of her mother’s remains and re-interment in a nearby cemetery. The Chancellor, after considering the principles laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, determined that no special reasons existed which would justify an exception to the norm of permanence of Christian burial.

The Chancellor, taking into account the guidance in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], determined that there were special reasons for permitting exhumation and reinterment. The cremated remains of the father of the three petitioning children had been buried in a parish churchyard. At the time it was intended that his wife's cremated remains should be placed with his. When his wife died, the children found that her will said that she wished to be buried in a family grave in a cemetery. They mistakenly felt obliged to comply with the terms of the will, but this defeated the original intention of the mother and the father to be buried together. After the second burial the children regretted not having buried their parents together and made a fairly prompt application to rectify the situation. Accordingly, the Chancellor allowed the cremated remains of the father to be exhumed and reinterred in the family grave in the cemetery.

The Chancellor found that there were special circumstances (as set out in the judgment) which justified him in granting a faculty for exhumation and reinterment in the same churchyard. The petitioner wished to move the cremated remains of his father to the grave of his mother, who had died recently and who had expressed a wish before her death to have her body buried and for her husband's cremated remains to be moved into the same grave, not realising that there could be difficulties in carrying out her wishes.

The petitioners' proposals included: the creation of a draught lobby in the church porch with new screening, glass doors and stepless access; a second toilet, accessible to the disabled; removal of some pews; alteration of the children's pews; and some electrical and heating works. Historic England and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings were concerned about the impact of the proposed porch screen on the building's significance and special interest. However, the Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the proposals and he granted a faculty.

A couple who had lived in the village for 46 years each applied to reserve a grave space. The Parochial Church Council did not support the applications, as they had previously adopted and applied a policy of not supporting the reservation of grave spaces in view of the limited number of spaces left available. The Chancellor considered that the policy was appropriate and should be adhered to in the absence of any exceptional circumstances as to why the policy should be overridden. In these two cases the couple had been invited to put forward any exceptional circumstances, but they had failed to do so. The Chancellor therefore refused to grant faculties.

Application for a Faculty for the replacement of existing structures in the churchyard of a redundant church appropriated by a pastoral scheme for the use of an Oxford college. The work to include a new gardener’s office, greenhouse and cold frames and three storerooms and the removal of existing sheds and other structures, new bicycle stands to replace old ones, new fencing and the relocation of six monuments. Faculty granted for relocation of memorials and for only such other items as could not be regarded as "buildings" within the meaning of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which prohibits the erection of buildings within a disused burial ground.