A memorial was installed within a couple of years of the petitioner's father dying in 1946, when the petitioner was a small child. In 2011 the petitioner's cousin and her aunt decided to replace the original memorial with a black polished granite memorial with kerbs and green chippings, and the installation was carried out without faculty. The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the removal of the second memorial and the erection of a replica of the original. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner was the heir at law in respect of the first memorial, the person who purchased the memorial (assumed to be the petitioner's mother) having died. He accordingly granted a faculty to the petitioner.

As part of its policy on climate change, to reduce its carbon footprint, the College wished to place solar panels on both the north and south sides of the Chapel roof. The main arguments of the consultees against the proposal were that the panels would be partially visible through the parapet tracery from a few viewpoints. The Church Building Council also questioned whether panels on the north side of the roof could generate enough energy to justify them. The Chancellor was satisfied that the scheme would benefit the College and would help it towards reaching its net zero target. He determined that he would grant a faculty for solar panels on both sides of the roof, or on the south side only, dependent upon an updated assessment of the potential carbon payback for the north roof and calculations and observations as to the effect on the structure without an identical weight on the north roof, were the eventual decision to allow for solar panels on the south roof only.  The assessment should be produced within 28 days and provided to the DAC and other bodies who had been involved in the process, such assessment to be produced within 28 days and then submitted to the consultees for comment within a further 21 days.

A faculty was sought for the following in the unlisted church which was built in 1969-1970: replacement of the existing twenty pews with one hundred and twenty Alpha SB2M chairs and four stacking trollies; a data projector to the front archway; an overhead retractable screen to the wall above the reredos; a lighting bar and stage lights to the front archway; replacement of the existing sound desk housing with a larger housing to accommodate additional equipment. Two parishioners wrote a letter of objection, but did not become parties opponent. They claimed that there had been insufficient consultation in the parish and that the audio-visual equipment had already been installed. The Chancellor was satisfied that there had been adequate consultation and that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works. As for part of the works being completed already, the Chancellor accepted the explanation and apology given by the petitioners. A faculty was granted in respect of all the works.

The petitioner's late father, a Muslim, had been buried in a grave in part of the cemetery consecrated for burials according to the rites of the Church of England. It was unclear whether this had been pointed out to the family at the time of death (as none of the cemetery staff were in post when the father was buried), but probably not. Also, the burial had been limited to single depth, because of the ground conditions. The petitioner's mother, who had recently died, had been buried in an unconsecrated part of the cemetery. The petitioner stated that it had been the wish of his parents to be buried together. It had not been possible to bury the petitioner's mother in the same grave as her husband (even disregarding the fact that the grave was consecrated. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to enable exhumation of the petitioner's father's remains, for reinterment in the unconsecrated grave where his mother was buried.

In 1985 the petitioner's young sister's body had been buried in a consecrated part of Lambeth Cemetery. The family are Italian Roman Catholics, and when the burial took place they had no understanding of the significance of burial in consecrated ground, and it had been the intention of the parents after ten or so years to return to Southern Italy and take their daughter’s remains with them with a view to reburial in an above-ground mausoleum in South Italy, where that form of burial is common. The plan to return to Italy changed, but in 1998 a new mausoleum was opened at Streatham Park Cemetery, and since then it had been much used by the Italian community. The petitioner wished to move his sister's body to the mausoleum. The Chancellor granted a faculty, on the basis that at the time of burial there had been a mistake in the family's understanding of the nature of, and the consequences of, interment in consecrated ground, which had not been explained to them.

The petitioner wished to exhume the body of her daughter from Lambeth Cemetery with a view to reinterment in Streatham Park Cemetery. The petitioner's family were Italian Roman Catholics. They had intended after about 10 years to return to Italy and have the remains of the daughter exhumed and reinterred in an above-ground mausoleum in Southern Italy. However, following the opening of a new mausoleum in Streatham Park Cemetery, and a change of plan as to their future, they wished to have the remains buried at Streatham Park Cemetery mausoleum, where many Italians were being buried. As the family of the deceased had intended the original burial to be temporary and had a mistaken view of the consequences of burial in consecrated ground, the Chancellor was persuaded to treat the circumstances as exceptional and to grant a faculty.

The petitioner wished to exhume from the consecrated part of Lambeth Cemetery the remains of her father, interred in 1987. The family is not Christian, but Taoist, and it was not known at the time of the interment that the grave was consecrated. When the petitioner's mother died in 2018, the petitioner felt that she could not have her mother's remains buried in the same grave as her father, owing to the Taoist cultural tradition prohibiting a female being buried on top of the head of the family. There was no available spce for interment of her mother's remains next to those of her father, so the petitioner arranged for her mother's remains to be interred in a double plot in Beckenham Cemetery, assuming that she would be able to have her father's remains exhumed and reinterred in that grave. The Chancellor considered that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her partner James's brother and sister exhumed from the consecrated area of Lambeth Cemetery and reinterred in the same double grave plot which James had reserved in 1991, intending the plot for his mother and himself. The reason for the request was that James's mother had died and her body had been buried in the plot, and James's brother and sister had then died, and their cremated remains had been interred in the plot. This presented a problem when James subsequently died, because for him to be buried in the grave (he did not wish to be cremated), the cremated remains of his brother and sister would have to be lifted in order to allow his burial, with their cremated remains then being returned to the grave. The Chancellor was satisfied that the circumstance were such as to justify the grant of a faculty.

The facts of the case were that the petitioner wished to have the body of his son, who was stillborn in 1998, exhumed from an area of the cemetery set aside for the remains of children and reinterred in a burial chamber in the same cemetery with the body of the petitioner's wife, who had died in 2020, the burial chamber being large enough for the petitioner's remains to be interred in it in due course, thus creating a family grave. In his judgment the Chancellor gives his reasons for having already granted a faculty for exhumation. The judgment contains a discussion of the approach of the courts in the leading cases relating to exhumation.

The petitioner wished to exhume the body of her still-born son who was buried in an oak coffin in the cemetery in 1991 and to have the remains cremated and the ashes placed in a designated rose garden area at Landican Cemetery, where the remains of her own mother and brother had been placed. The petitioner's former partner opposed the exhumation, claiming to be the father of the child and the owner of rights of burial in the grave, whereas the petitioner claimed that he was not the father, and that she had conceived the child as the result of a relationship with another man during a brief separation of the petitioner and her former partner. There were allegations on both sides of interference with items placed on the grave. The Chancellor determined that exhumation was unnecessary and encouraged the parties, with the help of the cemetery manager, to reach an agreement about the future care of the grave.