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.

The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* listed church, the details of which are too numerous to include in this brief note, but included the replacement of the vestry with a four storey extension to the church, to provide meeting rooms and offices; the removal of the pews and replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; the carpeting of the whole floor; and the creation of a kitchen. The amenity societies involved objected to several of the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the items. One of the items he declined to approve was the carpeting of the nave.

The proposal was to remove the last three remaining rows of 20th century pews from the nave of the Grade I church, to 'facilitate flexible use of the nave for worship and missional events'. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of removal far outweighed any disadvantages and he accordingly granted a faculty.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed for the Grade II* Georgian church, including replacing the existing extensions on the north and south sides of the church and the replacement of the nave pews with 'Theo M' stackable chairs. The justification put forward for the works was that the church had experienced significant growth and had been designated by the Bishop as a resourcing church, to promote Church growth, including resourcing other churches and planting new ones. The proposed works would provide great facilities to meet this objective. The Georgian Society ('GS') and the Victorian Society ('VS') objected to the removal of the pews and the VS objected to the two extensions. Neither the GS nor the VS became parties opponent. Whilst acknowledging the significance of the pews and existing architecture of the church, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that any harm to such significance would be outweighed by the public benefit. In his judgment, the Chancellor addressed the meaning of ‘serious’ in the fifth Duffield question.