The petitioner wished to have the ashes of his father, who died in 2002, exhumed from a plot of land adjacent to the churchyard. There was a question as to whether the plot of land, known as the "church garden", adjoining the churchyard, was consecrated and therefore within the faculty jurisdiction. The petitioner's mother died in 2020. It had been her wish that her ashes should be buried with her husband's ashes. Permission to do so had been refused by the incumbent, as he believed the church garden was not consecrated. The Deputy Chancellor determined that (a) the effect of Section 5 of the Consecration of Churchyards Act 1867, under which the land had been gifted, was to add the church garden land to the churchyard, and it therefore came within the court's jurisdiction; (b) the church garden had not been consecrated; and (c) that, in the circumstances, a faculty should be granted for the removal of the ashes (if practicable) or, alternatively, for the ashes of the Petitioner's mother to be interred with her husband's ashes.

A faculty had been granted for three trees to be removed from the churchyard. The contractor responsible for the work removed two trees which had not been covered by the faculty. The incumbent and churchwardens made an application for a confirmatory faculty to approve the felling of the two trees. The contractor was joined as a party. Aside from the mistake, the Chancellor was concerned that the contractor had been unfamiliar with the faculty process and he emphasised the need for those carrying out works in churchyards to be conversant with the requirements of the faculty jurisdiction. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to the contractor planting replacement trees and also paying the costs occasioned by the proceedings.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a major re-ordering, being satisfied that the benefits of the proposed works would outweigh any the harm to the significance of the Grade I listed church as a building of architectural or historic interest. The proposed works included a new kitchen and two new toilets (to replace the existing kitchen and single toilet); the replacement of the pews with chairs; and new screening for chair storage at the tower.

In the particular circumstances of this case, the Chancellor found reasons to justify the grant of a faculty authorising a memorial of light grey Cornish granite, which is not covered by the churchyard regulations: the deceased had a connection with Cornwall; there were two Cornish light grey memorials already in the same row as the grave of the deceased, and one in the next row; and the stone was not far removed in the appearance from the majority of local stones in the churchyard.

The Team Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty to replace one half of the existing benches in the church with chairs and to introduce of a new altar frontal and pulpit fall. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to reserve a double grave in the churchyard extension. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited it to 10 years, having been advised that the churchyard was likely to have space for burials for only the next 10 years. The Chancellor concluded her judgment by saying: "It remains open to the petitioners to apply at any time for an extension of the 10-year period, for example, should their personal circumstances change or in the event that more space becomes available in the churchyard such as by the consecration of an extension to the churchyard or a policy on re-use of older graves being adopted."

The petitioners applied to reserve a double grave in the churchyard extension.  The churchyard was likely to have space for burials for only the next 10 years. Although the petitioners did not live in the parish and did not therefore have a legal right to be buried in the churchyard, the application was supported by the Incumbent and Churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limiting the reservation of the grave to 10 years, taking the view that, "in the circumstances of this case it is not right to grant a faculty for longer than the churchyard is likely to remain open." The Chancellor left it open to the petitioners to apply for an extension in 10 years' time.

The 7th Baron Lord Carrington wished to introduce into the church, at the west end of the nave, two heraldic banners which had belonged to his late father, the 6th Baron Carrington. One banner was the late Lord Carrington’s banner as a Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George (KCMG), and the other was his banner as a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (KG). As the late Lord Carrington had had a distinguished political career and made an outstanding contribution to the life of the nation, had lived in the village and was a patron of the church, the Chancellor decided that there were sufficiently good reasons to overcome the ordinary presumption against change to a church building and he therefore granted a faculty.

The Chancellor considered two petitions relating to the disused burial ground of Holy Trinity Church Hull, now Hull Minster. The proposals related to part of the burial ground being used for widening of the A63 main road in Hull at a difficult junction, and included the excavation of human remains; analysis of a large sample of the remains; the reinterment of the remains; the re-siting of memorials; rebuilding of the boundary wall of the burial ground; and landscaping. There was one objection from a lady whose forbears were buried in the part of the burial ground which would be affected by the road-widening. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made out in terms of public benefit and authorised the issue of the faculties sought.

An application was made for a Faculty to authorise the removal of a Victorian pipe organ, and its replacement with an electric organ. This would be part of a larger project of re-ordering, for which an application for a faculty had not yet been made. The reasons for removal of the organ were that the organ was rarely used, it did not suit the evangelical style of worship, and its removal would free up space to create two meeting rooms. The Victorian Society objected to the proposals. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted.