In 1997 the deceased had requested the reservation of the grave at the foot of the grave of her late husband. Owing to an administrative mistake the wrong plot number was allocated, but the deceased did not realise that the grave number was incorrect. At the funeral, the family realised that the grave for the deceased had been dug in the wrong place, but felt unable to do other than proceed with the funeral. They subsequently sought a faculty for exhumation and reinterment in the intended grave. The Chancellor was satisfied that a genuine mistake had been made, which could be regarded as an exception to the presumption of permanence of burial. He therefore granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment, in order to correct the error.

Reordering proposals included: new toilet and kitchen facilities and multi-functional space; replacement of the pews with Howe 40/4 chairs; a new floor with underfloor heating; a mezzanine floor and roof-lights; the creation of a columbarium; a new doorway;  and the screening of external storage areas. The Vicar General & Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to exhume the remains of her mother-in-law ("the deceased") from Peel Cemetery and reinter them in a private chapel called The Chantry, at Crogga, where the remains of the deceased's son and the petitioner's husband were laid. The petitioner's husband was a prominent member of the Roman Catholic community in the island. The Vicar General decided that this was an appropriate exceptional circumstance justifying a departure from the principle of permanence of burial as expressed in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299. He therefore granted a faculty. However, under Isle of Man law remains could be exhumed and reburied only if moved from one piece of consecrated land to another piece of consecrated land (that is land consecrated according to the Anglican tradition), but the Chantry was not so consecrated. Therefore, in addition to the faculty, the petitioner would need to obtain the consent of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture.

In 1996 a faculty had been granted for the removal of the pipe organ to a community centre for storage, and for an electronic organ to be installed. There was a condition that, within 10 years, the original pipe organ or a substitute should be installed. In 2009 the pipe organ had been disposed of, without the authority of a faculty, to the workshops of an organ builder, where some of the parts had been scrapped. The present application was for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty, subject to a condition that after May 2016 an assessment of the musical needs of the Abbey should be carried out, with a consideration of the options of a pipe organ, an electronic organ or a hybrid instrument, together with financial implications, after which a firm proposal should be put forward.

In 1996 a faculty had been granted for the replacement of the Walker/Nicholson organ with a Bradford Computing Organ, subject to a condition that a pipe organ – either the Walker/Nicholson organ or another – would in due course be installed in the Abbey within ten years. In 2012 a faculty authorised the disposal of the Walker/Nicholson organ. The present petition sought to replace the Bradford Computing organ with an Allen electronic organ.The Church Buildings Council preferred a new pipe organ. There were two formal objections. The Deputy Chancellor was of the view that the long-term solution appropriate to the Abbey was a pipe organ. He granted a faculty to authorise the Allen organ as a temporary solution for 10 years, after which it should be removed. This would give time for consideration of a suitable pipe organ to replace the Allen organ.

There had been a scheme for reordering parts of the church, most of which had already been approved by the Chancellor. The only outstanding item was the proposed introduction of carpets in the nave. The Diocesan Advisory Committee was of the opinion that carpet was not appropriate for a Grade II* church, "being too domestic in appearance". Historic England (though it did not wish to be a party opponent) objected that the introduction of carpet would be harmful to the significance of the building. The Chancellor was however satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the introduction of carpet and did not feel that it would have the adverse impact claimed by Heritage England. He therefore granted a faculty.

Following a complaint by a parishioner, there were two petitions relating to the churchyards of two parishes. The Rector and Churchwardens sought a confirmatory faculty to allow the retention of several grave markers and other items which have been introduced without lawful authority, either because the Rector had allowed items to be introduced which were outside the delegated authority he had under the churchyards regulations or because items had been installed without his permission first being sought. In his judgment, the Chancellor emphasised the importance of clergy complying with their responsibilities under the regulations. The Chancellor granted a faculty with conditions requiring that several items should be removed from graves in the two churchyards.

A Faculty was granted for exhumation. The judgment contains a lengthy discussion as to what may amount to “exceptional circumstances” to justify exhumation.

The Petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her late mother from one plot in the consecrated area of the cemetery and reinter them in another consecrated plot in the same cemetery. The Petitioner's father had died in 2006 and had been buried in the cemetery. In 2007 the Petitioner purchased a plot for her mother near to her father's plot, and when her mother died in 2010 the Petitioner arranged for her mother's remains to be buried in the separate plot which she had purchased, even though her mother had expressed a wish, shortly before she died, to be buried with her husband. The Petitioner subsequently felt guilty at not having carried out her mother's wishes and now wished to have her mother's remains interred with her father's.The Deputy Chancellor decided that there were no special circumstances within the guidelines laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] to justify him in granting a faculty.

The petitioner, after discovering that the remains of her husband (a Roman Catholic of an Italian family) had been interred in a consecrated part of Putney Vale cemetery, wished to have his remains exhumed and reinterred in unconsecrated ground. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that a mistake had occurred, which justified exhumation. He agreed that the exhumation could take place, provided that the remains were reinterred in the unconsecrated churchyard of the the petitioner's church, the Church of Our Lady of Pity and St. Simon Stock in Putney.