Unbeknown to the incumbent of the church, some cremated remains were buried very close to a sewer running through the churchyard. This fact came to light when repair work needed to be carried out on the sewer, which might cause damage to the memorial and disturb the remains. The deceased's widow requested a faculty to exhume the remains and reinter them in the same churchyard about 30 feet from their current position. The Chancellor was satisfied that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation and reinterment.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews in the centre of the church nave and the chairs in the north and south aisles with new wooden chairs having upholstered seats and backs. The judgment contains a discussion by the Chancellor on the nature of the Church Buildings Council Guidance on Seating and its application.

There was a petition by the Vicar and Churchwardens seeking permission to convert a fixed lavabo in the sanctuary of a nineteenth century church for use as an aumbry. The Chancellor granted a Faculty. Although the petition was unopposed, the Chancellor decided to give a detailed written judgment, in order to explain his reasoning, particularly with regard to the questions raised in the Court of Arches judgment Re St. Alkmund Duffield, and their application to the subject matter of the present petition.

A faculty had already been granted for the carrying out of an extensive reordering. This included the removal of an Edwardian font. The present proposal was to place a medieval font where the Edwardian font stood. Faculty granted. The Chancellor considered what should be done with the Edwardian font, pursuant to the first petition, which included in the schedule of works the burial of the Edwardian font where it stood. The Chancellor decided that it was not appropriate to bury the Edwardian font, but that it should be re-sited in another part of the church. The judgment contains a brief discussion about whether a church can have two fonts. The first petition was amended to delete the proposal to bury the Edwardian font.

A new underfloor heating system was proposed for the church, and the proposals included replacing the wooden floor boards of the nave with hand-made tiles, and replacing the wood block flooring in the Lady Chapel with limestone. The Victorian Society was originally, on aesthetic grounds, against replacing the wooden floor boards  and the wood block flooring. However, the evidence of the Senior Project Consultant was that wood flooring over the underfloor heating would be less thermally efficient. At a meeting of the Victorian Society, the Church Building Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee, a compromise version of the specification for the design of the tile flooring was agreed. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Having been through a period of decline, the Grade II* listed church had been revitalised in recent years, with 300 people attending weekly to worship in an evangelical style. The Petitioners wished to carry out a major reordering in stages, to create a multi-functional space for the church and the wider community. The first stage of the reordering involved the replacement of the pews with chairs, a servery and the moving of the font from near the main church door. The chair proposed was an Alpha SB2M", with a chromed metal frame and an upholstered seat and back. Most of the amenity societies consulted objected to the taking out of the pews and replacement with the proposed style of chair. The Victorian Society was a party opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made out for the servery and the replacement of the pews with the chosen chairs, and granted a faculty, but he did not consider that an adequate case had been made for the moving of the font.

The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of his father's cremated remains from the family plot of his mother's family and to reinter the remains in a new plot in which the petitioner's mother's cremated remains could be interred in due course. The Petitioner's mother had not realised at the time of her husband's death that there was only one space left in her family's plot. This had caused the petitioner's mother a lot of distress since the interment, as she wished her remains in due course to be buried with her husband's remains. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the circumstances of the present case were such as to warrant an exception to the general rule that human remains, once interred, should not be disturbed, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

A father and son had died together in 1977 and their ashes had been interred in a public cemetery. The father's widow applied for a faculty to authorise exhumation of the remains and their reinterment in a private burial ground with a view to creating a family grave where the remains of other members of the family could be interred. The Chancellor received reports from a psychotherapist and a general practitioner that the exhumation and reinterment would be beneficial to the mental well-being of one of the widow's daughters. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the remains of the father and son, after such a long period, could be identified and fully removed.

In 1984 the cremated remains of RM were interred in a churchyard. RM’s widow died in 2022 or 2023, and her cremated remains were still retained by her daughter. The daughter now wished to scatter the remains of both parents under a tree in her garden, in order to fulfil the wishes of her mother. Following the guidelines in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, Court of Arches, the Chancellor could not find any special circumstances that made this case sufficiently ‘exceptional’ to permit an exception to the rule of permanence of burial.

Two sisters of a man who had recently died wished, in accordance with his alleged wishes, to have his ashes interred in the grave of his former wife. Other members of the family objected to the proposal, without becoming parties opponent in the proceedings, alleging that the deceased’s wife had been a victim of domestic abuse from her husband (from whom she had been divorced on the grounds of his abuse) and that it was not therefore appropriate for his remains to be buried with hers. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty because the interment of the deceased’s ashes in the grave of the his late wife “would become a cause of distress or conflict, or a focus of grievance, between family members, and those attending to mourn at [his late wife’s] graveside.”