The Chancellor granted a faculty for an exhumation and reinterment in circumstances where, owing to an administrative error, a deceased's remains had been buried in the wrong grave.

The petitioner's brother had died, aged 5, in 1970 and his remains were interred in a consecrated part of Streatham Park Cemetery. It had been the hope of the petitioner's parents that they would be able to be buried next to their son. The petitioner's mother having recently died, it was discovered that the she could not be buried next to her son. The petitioner therefore sought a faculty to have her brother's remains exhumed and the grave dug deeper to allow the reinterment of her brother's remains, the interment of her mother and, in due time the interment of her father. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: "... family graves are intrinsically a good thing, as expressive of family unity and making economical use of grave space. The creation of a family grave formed part of the exceptional circumstances arising in Blagdon." [Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 291 (Court of Arches)]

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his late wife from Sutton Cemetery and reinter them at the North East Surrey Crematorium in Morden. He had agreed to his wife's ashes being interred at Sutton in the grave of his wife's mother and grandmother. The Petitioner expected that he too could have his ashes buried with those of his wife in due course. However, owing to a rift between the petitioner and his wife's sisters, the sisters would not agree to the petitioner's ashes being buried with those of his wife. The Chancellor decided that this was an exceptional case where he could grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment, so that the petitioner's ashes could be buried in the same grave as the ashes of his wife in due time.

The proposal was to construct limed oak seating around the semi-circle of the apse of the Lady Chapel, terminating in a credence table at the southern end. The Vicar and Churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council wished to make the chapel suitable for other forms of service in addition to Holy Communion. There were three objectors in response to the public notice, only one of whom became a party opponent. His principal objection was that "The Chapel dedicated to Our Lady is for prayer and celebration of the Eucharist. It is not intended as a place for any other gathering, nor is it appropriate for con-celebration." The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and granted a faculty.

Medieval tracery and stained glass forming the east window of the church had been removed in the 1880s, due to subsidence. New tracery and stained glass were installed. The old glass and tracery were placed in storage. In 1975 the tracery was laid out near the replacement east window and the glass was given on loan to the Stained Glass Museum at Ely.The Vicar and Churchwardens now sought a faculty to convert the loan of the glass to a gift. Re St Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches considered. Faculty granted

Faculty granted for the installation of an audio-visual system in a Grade II* Queen Anne church.

The Petitioner applied for permission to erect a memorial to her son, who had been tragically run over and killed by a motor car. The memorial as installed bore features which were not mentioned in the memorial application - black stone; gold lettering; a photo plaque; the insignia of a football club; and the club colours (red and white) painted in alternate stripes along the edges of the memorial. The Chancellor directed that the edges of the memorial should be painted black, and the photo plaque should be removed or replaced with an incised, uncoloured portrait. In default of the amendments being made within three months, the Chancellor directed that the memorial should be removed from the churchyard.

There were proposals for reordering and the objector objected to the moving of the tombs of two bishops who were founding members of the Community, the levelling of the floor, the provision of heating and lighting, and the removal of the choir stalls and screen. The Chancellor directed the issue of a faculty for all the proposals, apart from the moving of the two tombs.

This is an anonymised judgment. The petitioner proposed to be buried in the same grave as her late sister and parents. However, when her sister's husband died, his cremated remains were interred in the same grave, notwithstanding that a granddaughter of the late sister had specifically asked the parish priest not to inter the husband's remains in the same grave, alleging that the husband had subjected her to repeated sexual abuse when she was young, and it would cause great distress to the family to have his remains in the same grave where the remains of some members of the family were already interred and where other members of the family wished their remains to be interred. The Chancellor decided that the continuing family distress which would be caused by allowing the husband's remains to be left in the grave amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation. He therefore granted a faculty for the exhumation of the husband's cremated remains and for reinterment of the remains in another churchyard.

There were extensive reordering proposals for the 1930s unlisted church at an estimated cost of nearly £1,000,000 (of which £775,000 was already available from the sale of some property): substantial reordering of the church, works to the church hall, which is a detached building, and other external works, involving the creation of an external play area, slight relocation of the war memorial, and widening of existing footpaths. The Twentieth Century Society raised no objections to the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to a condition that no work should commence until the Parochial Church Council had raised at least £900,000.