A bench had been introduced into the churchyard in 2002 to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee. In June 2021 the bench had been painted in rainbow colours, without consent, by a small group of people intending to show support for the National Health Service, in view of the association of the rainbow with the NHS, which had arisen during the course of the Coronavirus pandemic. The priest-in-charge sought a confirmatory faculty to retain the bench as painted. The Chancellor was not persuaded by the arguments for retention of the rainbow colours. He refused to grant a faculty and ordered that the bench should be re-painted or re-stained as soon as possible: "I have to consider the legal situation regarding this bench and also the thoughts, feelings and emotions of all users of the churchyard, not just those who support the significant change that was carried out without permission".

An application was made for a faculty for the replacement of the existing convection gas heaters with nine new convection gas heaters. The parish had obtained a quotation in the sum of £33,795.60. Of concern to the Chancellor was that the parish had already paid a deposit of £17,000 to the contractor before applying for a faculty, and when the application was made it was clear that the parish had not had “due regard” to the Church of England’s Net Zero policy by considering other options which did not involve replacing one fossil fuel system with another. The Chancellor required the petitioners to look at other options, which they did. The Chancellor, whilst deprecating the way things had been done, acknowledged that to reject the proposals would cause undue further financial problems for the church and a delay in providing a new heating system. He therefore granted a faculty, subject to conditions requiring the parish to enter into a green gas tariff or a separate arrangement with a carbon offsetting scheme and to obtain professional advice about how to make a meaningful contribution to Net Zero.

The petitioners applied to remove and dispose of a bell which had been stored at the rear of the nave of the church for 41 years. The bell was cast by Humphrey Wilkinson, a Lincolnshire founder, in 1700. The Church Buildings Council objected. The Petitioners wished to remove the bell as it impeded the use of the rear of the Church. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the bell to be removed to the diocesan store for safekeeping.

The Petitioner applied for a faculty to exhume her father's ashes and reinter them in a different part of the churchyard. The undertaker's gravedigger had dug the existing grave too close to the footpath for the proposed memorial, so that there would have been a danger of the grave and memorial being trodden on by members of the public. This was causing distress to the petitioner's mother. The Chancellor authorised the exhumation and reinterment.

The petitioners wished to install in the churchyard a memorial which was outside the churchyards regulations. It is described in the judgment as "of lawn design, with kerbstones, to be in black granite and with the addition, within the kerbs, of  a Sadshalil Grey ‘pathway to heaven’ – a curved, raised area running the length of the grave from its foot to the headstone itself". Letters of objection were received from the Rector, churchwardens, and some members of the Parochial Church Council. The petitioners argued that a number of memorials with kerbs had been introduced in the past, notwithstanding the regulations. The Chancellor, accepting the parish's desire to 'draw a line' and enforce the regulations, declined to approve the proposed memorial.

The Commonwealth Graves Commission applied for permission to erect in the churchyard a War Grave memorial to a soldier who died in 1918 of a disease acquired in France, whilst on active service. The exact position of his grave in the churchyard was unknown. But the Chancellor agreed to grant a faculty for the erection of the memorial.

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.