In 2018, a former archdeacon, at the request of the incumbent, had agreed to the interment of some ashes in the closed churchyard, though the Chancellor could find no evidence of the incumbent advising the archdeacon that the churchyard was closed by Order in Council, in which case a faculty would have been required to authorise the interment. There was now an application for a confirmatory faculty for the interment and for the erection of a memorial. The Chancellor determined, for pastoral reasons, to grant a faculty.

The Chancellor gave an anonymised judgment in order to protect the privacy of anyone who might be affected by the judgment. The petition requested authority for the removal of a commemorative plaque, which had been installed without faculty on a window sill inside the church. The plaque recorded that the window above it had been restored by a local farmer and former long-serving churchwarden, who had died in his 80s. It had been brought to the attention of the Parochial Church Council that in the 1950s the former churchwarden had been convicted on four charges of sexual abuse. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the petitioner had demonstrated a sufficiently good reason justifying the removal of the commemorative plaque.

In her will, Mrs. Florence Pearson impliedly expressed a wish to have her ashes and those of her late husband scattered off Beachy Head. To this end the petitioner, as Mrs. Pearson's executor, applied for permission to have Mr. Pearson's ashes exhumed from the Robin Hood Cemetery. The Chancellor did not find any sufficient exceptional reason to justify him granting a faculty.

The petitioner's wife had died in 2019 and had been buried in the grave of her parents in Rochdale Cemetery. The petitioner had hoped to be buried in the same grave, but arguments had subsequently arisen between the petitioner and his wife's family as to who had a right to be buried in the grave. The petitioner therefore applied for permission to have his wife's body exhumed so that it could be buried in a new grave where the petitioner could also be buried in due course. Members of the petitioner's wife's family objected. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner's wife had wanted to be buried with the petitioner and there had been a mistaken belief by both of them that they would be entitled to be buried together. It was therefore appropriate for a faculty for exhumation and reinterment to be granted to the petitioner.

A faculty was sought to allow the introduction into the Abbey of a diptych, one part of which portrays St. Ethelflaeda, one of the patron saints of the Abbey; the other part of the diptych depicts a candlestick. The Statement of Significance submitted by the Petitioners said that the painting was designed “to be challenging and controversial”, and to encourage “members of the congregation and visitors alike to contemplate the serenity of the abbess’s face and reflect on our own faith and spirituality”. There were 15 objectors, who did not become parties opponent. Objections included: the painting lacks artistic merit; it does not “enhance or beautify the Abbey in any way” and is “ugly”; “The ‘Saint’ is sinister and anatomically impossible and the candlestick, as often commented… looks like a giraffe neck”; the painting is not edifying/spiritually beneficial; it is “dark and disturbing”, “grotesque” ... and “raises nothing but horror”; it detracts from the architecture of the Abbey. The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty: "those who find the painting beautiful, helpful and spiritually uplifting can continue to benefit from its presence, and it can continue to play a part in the Abbey’s outreach and mission. Those who are disturbed or displeased by it need not dwell on its presence.  It seems to me that the Abbey is a large enough space, physically and spiritually, to accommodate both camps."

The petitioner requested permission to exhume the cremated remains of her late husband from the churchyard at Aby and reinter them in the cemetery in Horncastle. The reasons she gave for wanting to move her father's remains were: (1) the access to the churchyard was over a field, which was difficult in wet weather; (2) rabbits had burrowed under her father's grave; (3) she wished her father's ashes to be moved to a cemetery nearer to her, which would make it easier for her family to visit the grave; and (4) she felt that her late husband was 'alone' in the churchyard at Aby. Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], the Chancellor did not find any special reasons to justify him granting a faculty.

The proposal was to create a doorway in the north wall of the mediaeval tower of the Grade I listed church, for the purpose of providing access to kitchen and lavatory facilities to be created against the external tower wall. The precise design of the facilities would be the subject of a subsequent faculty petition and dependent on the outcome of the present application. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings considered intervention in the mediaeval fabric to be unjustified. The Chancellor determined that, of the six alternative schemes considered by the petitioners, the chosen one, on balance, would be the correct one to adopt, and he accordingly granted a faculty, subject to the work not being carried out until a further faculty for the construction of the associated extension had been granted.

The Chancellor found special reasons to authorise the exhumation from a cemetery of the cremated remains of a Chinese national, and re-interment in another cemetery, where an area of graves was reserved for members of the Chinese community, though the remains were not to go in a family grave as such: "If my decision were otherwise, the Chinese Christian Church might well feel deeply aggrieved that exhumations may be allowed for non-Chinese Christians for burial in family surroundings (albeit in one grave) while for cultural reasons that possibility is denied to their own community." The judgment contains a detailed discussion of the decisions of the appellate courts and the rule of precedent.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to allow the remains of the petitioner's father to be exhumed and reinterred in another cemetery with the remains of the petitioner's mother: "A wish (however understandable) to reverse a decision made several years ago, which although regretted since was perfectly valid at the time it was made, is not sufficient, in my judgment, for these purposes.

Lancaster City Council applied for a faculty to permit the removal of the boundary hedge of the cemetery and the use of a 1.8m strip of the consecrated area of the cemetery to create a public footpath next to the immediately adjoining highway. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a new hedge being planted on the cemetery side of the proposed footpath. There were no human remains or memorials within the strip of land, and the proposal would improve the safety of users of the public highway.