The petitioner's father had died in 2017 and was buried in the cemetery in Stafford, in one half of a double grave, so that the petitioner's mother could be buried next to her husband in due course. The petitioner and her mother intended to remain in Stafford, but circumstances changed and they moved to Anglesey. The petitioner wished to move her father's remains for reburial in Anglesey, where the petitioner's mother could in due course be buried next to her husband. The Deputy Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Following the guidance of the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the fact that the petitioner's mother (aged 95) was infirm and could no longer manage the journey to Stafford was not capable of being an exceptional circumstance such as to justify exhumation.

The Faculty Petition sought permission for (a) CCTV cameras, (b) a projector and screen, and (c) new railings for the churchyard. Objections were made in respect of the proposed new railings. The Chancellor granted a Faculty for all the items. 

This judgment related to Re Tonge Moor St. Augustine (1) [2012]. The Chancellor refused to make an order for costs against the objectors.

The petitioner applied for permission to exhume the remains of her baby, who had died fifteen years previously aged 12 weeks, following an operation to repair a heart defect. At the time of the baby's death, the petitioner and her former partner had lived in Lancashire, where the baby had been buried, but the petitioner (and her former partner) now lived in Yorkshire. The petitioner claimed that owing to her state of health it was difficult to visit the grave in Lancashire. Her former partner objected to the proposed exhumation and became a party opponent. The Deputy Chancellor, after considering the decisions in Re Christ Church, Alsager [1999] Fam 142, Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, and other exhumation cases, determined that moving the remains of the baby simply so that they were nearer to where the petitioner now lived was not an exceptional reason for authorising an exhumation and he accordingly refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have the body of her father, who died in 2010, exhumed from the cemetery and reinterred on the family farm ten miles away.  The reason given was that, at the time of the deceased's death, the family was unaware that burial on private land was possible. If they had known at the time, the family would have had the deceased buried on the farm. (The deceased's widow applied to be added as a petitioner after the petition was lodged, and she wished to be buried in due course with her late husband on the farm.) The Chancellor did not regard the reason given as amounting to a mistake, within the meaning of 'mistake' as discussed in the guidelines given by the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, which might justify exhumation. He therefore refused to grant a faculty. He also pointed out that the petitioners had not addressed the issue of care for the proposed grave on private land.

The cremated remains of the petitioner's parents were both buried in separate plots in the cemetery, her mother having died in 2006 and her father in 2015. Her mother's remains had been buried in the grave of her grandmother and her sister. The owner of the grave in which the petitioner's mother's remains were interred (the daughter of the sister) refused to allow the remains of the petitioner's father to be buried in the same plot as his wife, even though the he had expressed in his will a desire to be buried with his wife. The petitioner therefore sought to exhume the remains of her mother and have them reinterred in the grave of her father. Having considered the guidelines in Re Blagdon, as to the circumstance in which exhumation may be allowed (which the Chancellor regarded as non-exclusive), he determined that there were sufficient exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to authorise the exhumation and reinterment.

A private individual applied for a faculty to authorise the cleaning of the war memorial in Tuxford churchyard and the re-colouring of the inscriptions. The Chancellor highlighted various difficulties presented by the matter: the status of the petitioner; the fact that originally the question as to ownership of the memorial had not been investigated; what should be the recommended method of cleaning; what should be the appropriate colouring of the lettering; and whether (as the memorial was listed Grade II) Listed Building Consent would be required. The Chancellor accepted that the petitioner had a sufficient interest to present the petition and that investigations after the lodging of the petition to establish ownership were unsuccessful. He granted a faculty authorising the cleaning of the memorial with plain water or steam cleaning and the re-colouring of the lettering only on a like-for-like basis. He also required that no work should be done until the local authority had confirmed in writing that Listed Building consent would not be required.

A body had been interred in a grave reserved for someone else. The family which had reserved the grave applied for a faculty for exhumation of the body wrongly placed in the reserved grave. One of the two people for whom the grave was reserved was terminally ill. The Chancellor granted the faculty on the basis that there had been a genuine administrative error, which led to the interment in the grave already reserved.

The petitioners wished to exhume the cremated remains of their son and scatter them on a beach in South Wales. The Chancellor could find no special reason to justify the grant of a faculty.

A faculty was granted for exhumation of the remains of a stillborn child from Wandsworth Cemetery and re-interment in Winchester, where the parents now live. Per Petchey Ch.: "I will grant this petition because of the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Rees did not have a permanent home in Wandsworth at the time of the burial of their stillborn son and because of the tragic circumstances of that stillbirth, with which Mrs. Rees is still trying to come to terms. These reasons represent circumstances which make it appropriate to make an exception to the norm of Christian burial."