The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty to permit the exhumation of the petitioner's grandfather's cremated remains from the churchyard at Orford and reinterment in the grave of his wife in Warrington Cemetry. No sufficient exceptional circumstances had been shown: the petitioner's grandfather had died 18 months after his wife had been buried in the cemetery and the family (who said that they had mistakenly thought that his remains could not be buried in the same grave as his wife, who had been a Roman Catholic) had decided to have his remains buried in Orford churchyard; a long period of time (21 years) had elapsed since his death; and there was no support for the exhumation from the parish.

The proposals included a dais, extending the chancel outwards beyond the choir and into the nave; removal of the back rows of choir stalls and re-positioning of the front rows; carpet for the dais and choir area; a portable altar and communion rails; alterations to the chancel arch; making the Lady chapel pews free-standing; and the removal of pews from the south aisle, to create a children's area. After considering the guidance given in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013], the Chancellor granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for various items of re-ordering, including moving from the chancel (but not removal from the church) of some choir stalls given in 1931 in memory of Emmeline Pankhurst.

The church wished to sell a 16th century chalice and paten and a 17th century Paten, which had been valued at £18,500, £8,500 and £5,500 respectively. The reasons given for the proposed sale were that the items were not used for health and safety and security reasons, and the church could not afford to insure the items to their full value. They were currently stored at a bank changing £750 per year for storage. Although the usual presumption is against the sale of church treasures, except in exceptional circumstances, the petitioners claimed that there were exceptional circumstances - principally, inability to pay the parish share and the quinquennial report indicating that £80,000 needed to be spent on repairs. The Chancellor, however refused to grant a faculty, as he was not satisfied that the petitioners had explored all possible ways of resolving the church's current financial position.

The petition sought retrospective permission for various works of reordering carried out without faculty during the 1990s. In a previous judgment the Chancellor had required the Parochial Church Council to put forward some proposals for recording what the church was like before the reordering, including the names of donors of items which had been removed, and also proposals for displaying the regimental banners. The Chancellor did not grant a faculty for the works carried out in the 1990s, but approved the display of drawings showing how the church looked before the reordering and the display of the regimental banners.

A married couple had been buried in graves alongside each other. Following the second interment (of the wife), the petitioners wished to move the memorial at the head of the husband's grave to mid-way between the two graves, to add a further inscription in gold letters on the polished black granite memorial and to add side panels bearing coloured rose designs. As there were many instances of memorials outside the churchyards regulations in the churchyard, including examples of memorials erected between adjacent graves, and in view of the fact that the churchyard would shortly need to be closed for further burials, the Chancellor granted a faculty, but excluded permission for the decorative side panels.

The petitioners sought a faculty for the permanent removal of some pews and the installation of a fitted carpet in the south west corner of the church. These works had previously been authorised by archdeacon's licence, and the petition sought to make permanent this temporary experiment. English Heritage commended the project and the Victorian Society did not wish to comment. The Chancellor took into account two letters of objection from parishioners. Faculty granted.

A reordering scheme involved pews, platforms, the floor, the pulpit, a dais, a toilet, new heating and lighting, a kitchen, new chairs and storage facilities. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions.

The proposed works included: (1) repair, replace and treat rotten and infested roof timbers and beams and floor supports and floors; (2) create a ramped disabled access adjacent to the main door; (3) create a disabled toilet within the disused south porch; (4) permanently remove some pews to create additional space for movement around the church and disabled/wheelchair access; and (5) create a larger family-friendly pew area at the rear of the south aisle by the removal of two pews. There were no objections. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed works would not result in any harm to the significance of the Grade II* church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and accordingly granted a faculty.

A Faculty had been granted in 2007 to authorise the removal of the pews. Upon an application in 2011 for an extension of time, the Chancellor directed that further Public Notices be published. Several objections were received. Matter determined by written representations. Extension allowed, subject to conditions.