The unlisted church had been built in 1966. A font constructed from brick, and clad in marble, had been removed from the church and broken up without the authority of a faculty. The stainless steel bowl, which had been part of the font, had been incorporated into a wooden, moveable font. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty for the disposal of the old font and the incorporation of the stainless steel bowl in the new font. The judgment contains a discussion of the law relating to the disposal of redundant fonts.

Faculty granted for extensive re-ordering including, the provision of toilet facilities, the removal of the choir stalls on both the north and south sides of the church, repositioning of the font, and the use of chairs in the new baptistry area, the removal of three rows of pews at the rear of the church, the installation of a balcony with stair access at the west end of the church, the provision of a separate meeting area under the balcony and a refreshment bar, a wooden and glass screen to divide the worship area from the meeting area, the replacement of the wooden main entrance door with glass doors.

Faculty granted for re-ordering, including new central heating system and replacement of pews with chairs.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise a twenty year licence permitting the installation and maintenance of mobile telephone antennas and dishes in the tower of the Grade II listed church. The Parochial Church Council had debated possible health issues and one member of the PCC objected on the ground that  mobile telephones can be used to transmit material that is both unlawful and immoral. In respect of the health issue, the Chancellor cited  Re St. Margaret Hawes [2003] 1 WLR 2568 (approved in Re Emmanuel Bentley [2006] 1 Fam 39 (Court of Arches)), in which it was said that there was no compelling evidence that radio transmissions within permitted levels were a danger to health. And in relation to the possible transmission of unlawful and immoral material, the Chancellor cited Chingford St. Peter and St. Paul [2007] 1 Fam 67, in which the Court of Arches decided that this was not a sufficient basis on which to refuse a faculty.

The petitioners requested a Faculty to install a glazed door in the 19th century porch on the south side of the church, which is the main entrance to the Grade I church, parts if which date from the 13th century. The church was largely rebuilt in 1874. The petitioners stated that when the wooden church doors were open, cold air passed through the porch into the church and also leaves tended to accumulate in the porch. The petitioners therefore felt that the answer was to place a non-reflective glazed door at the outside of the porch. English Heritage opposed the proposal.The Chancellor was not satisfied that the proposals satisfied the criteria in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2012]. Faculty refused.

The proposal was to remove from the unlisted mission church, built in 1907, two World War I war memorials and a soldier's grave marker and place them on display with other WWI material in the adjacent community room, where they would be more visible and accessible to the community. Two objectors felt that placing the items in a community room was inappropriate, and would detract from the respect and reverence with which they should be treated.

The petitioner, who lived in Oxfordshire, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard at Heptonstall in West Yorkshire, due to "her affection for literature and the proximity of the grave of Sylvia Plath". The priest-in-charge and Parochial Church Council had no objections to the reservation. There were in excess of 450 grave spaces available, and burials averaged five per year. After a discussion of the principles which a Chancellor should consider when deciding whether to exercise a discretion to grant a faculty to someone who had no legal right to be buried in a churchyard, the Chancellor determined that in this case there was no reason to refuse a faculty.

In the churchyard of St. Adamnan's Church (otherwise known as the Old Kirk) in Lonan, on the Isle of Man, stands a building called the Cross House, so named because it houses a number of ancient crosses. The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise the installation of an information board and signage to provide information about the crosses. A member of the Parochial Church Council lodged a letter of objection, claiming that the signage was unnecessary and that the Manx Museum and National Trust was responsible for the Cross House. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the work would not harm the building and that it would improve public understanding of the crosses and their significance.

The petitioner wished to exhume his wife's remains from a grave (intended as a double grave for his wife and himself) in an area which was regularly waterlogged in winter, and to reinter the remains in another part of the same churchyard. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation and reinterment.

The vicar and churchwardens wished to carry out certain items of refurbishment to the church, including "install etched safety glass panels between the main entrance lobby and the church". It was intended that these glass panels should replace the existing wooden panels, in the interests of safety and security and allowing more light into the lobby. Two parishioners objected to the glass panels on the grounds that anyone who felt ill and wanted to sit outside the body of the church for a while during a service would not be able to enjoy some privacy in the lobby if there were glass panels. The petitioners pointed out that there were other areas in the church where people who were feeling ill could enjoy some privacy. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made out a proper case for the work and granted a faculty.