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.

The petitioner, a Buddhist, applied for three faculties to permit the exhumation of the remains of his brother, who died in 1991, his grandmother, who died in 1993, and his father, who died in 2014, all Buddhists, from the consecrated area of Putney Vale Cemetery, for reinterment in the unconsecrated part of the cemetery. After the third interment, the petitioner had been advised by his family that, according to Buddhist tradition, it was inappropriate to bury Buddhists in consecrated ground and that it would cause "bad Karma" for the family. The petitioners sought to rectify what his family perceived to be a mistake. Faculties granted by the Chancellor: " I am glad that I have felt able to grant these petitions. The faith of Church of England is very different to the Buddhist faith and its views about the appropriate treatment of the remains of those who have died evidently diverge but the views of Mr Khiet Kham Hong and his family are genuinely held and are appropriately treated with respect.

The petitioner, a Vietnamese, wished to exhume the remains of his father, which had been buried in Putney Vale Cemetery according to Vietnamese Buddhist rites, and to re-inter the remains in another part of the cemetery, next to the grave of his mother. The reason the Petitioner gave for his petition was that, "According to our Vietnamese tradition and culture, the eldest son of the family will have to carry out the exhumation of the deceased father's body 10 years after it was first buried, and then to re-bury it." The Chancellor granted a faculty. The judgment includes a consideration of Articles 8 and 9 of the  European Convention on Human Rights.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the remains of a Buddhist who had been buried in 1994 in a consecrated  part of Southern Cemetery Manchester, so that the remains could be cremated and the ashes placed with the ashes of his wife, who died in 2016, in the Buddhist Temple of Manchester Fo Guan Shan. At the time of the interment in 1994, the family was unaware that the burial was in a Church of England consecrated part of the cemetery, and also at that time there was no facility in Manchester for the storage of cremated remains in accordance with the Buddhist faith.

The University of Oxford proposed a redevelopment of the site of the former Radcliffe Infirmary burial ground, which had been consecrated in 1770. The University therefore petitioned for the exhumation and subsequent reinterment of the human remains contained in the burial ground. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which restricted building on disused burial grounds, did not apply, owing to an exception in the Act which excluded burial grounds transferred by statute (the site having been transferred to to the Minister of Health under the National Health Service Act 1946). He was also satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation, namely, the public benefit to be derived from using the land for academic purposes.