The petitioner wished to place a 'desk type' ledger stone in the churchyard. The Rector had indicted that she would object, as the type of stone was not covered by the churchyards regulations, which require ledger stones to be laid flush with the ground. However, the incumbent had recently approved such a stone, and there were other examples of the type of stone in the same area of the churchyard. Following the departure of the rector, one of the churchwardens objected to the stone. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that (a) there was nothing offensive about the desk-style ledger stones which populate the particular area of the churchyard; (b) there were already several examples of the type of stone in that area; and (c) he was concerned that the church should be seen to be acting consistently towards applicants

A proposed extensive reordering was proposed. The works included: removal of pews, new chairs, a "welcome counter", a WC, a prayer chapel, a glass screen, a kitchen, removal of a pipe organ, new heating, lighting, and a parking area. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was a need for the works and granted a faculty.

The body of a woman was buried in the grave of her brother. The brother's widow and son were not consulted by the woman's sons or the funeral director or the parish priest. Upon discovering what had happened, the son applied for a faculty for exhumation, as he felt that he and his mother should have been consulted and he would have objected to the interment in his father's grave, had he known about it. The Chancellor took the view that the woman's sons had kept quiet about the existence of the son and widow, in order to have their mother buried in an existing grave in Cubley, where she did not have a legal right to be buried. However, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation. Although it was regrettable that the petitioner and his mother had not been consulted, the petitioner had "not established any basis sufficient in law based on any property right analogous to a reservation, or otherwise, to support his petition for exhumation".

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, which would cost over £500,000. There were seven parties opponent. The proposed works included the replacement of the nave pews with oak chairs; replacement of the Victorian tiles in the nave with sandstone flooring; the replacement of the existing vestry and boiler room with a new extension to house a parish room, toilet and kitchen; the provision of a servery; and other items to which there were no objections. Notwithstanding the objections, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the harm to the building would be modest, that the justification for the works was strong, and that the public benefit would outweigh any harm caused to the building.

The proposed works for the Grade II church included the replacement of the nave pews with oak chairs; the creation of a kitchen and Community Cafe; the installation of a disabled toilet; the creation of storage facilities; and new porch doors. Upon consideration of the guidelines laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012], the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty: " ...this seems to me to be a clear case where significant public benefit (including benefit to the listed building considered as such) outweighs modest harm so that I give a positive answer to the fifth of the Duffield questions."

The Vicar and Churchwardens of the unlisted Victorian church petitioned to remove the existing stone font (installed in 1975), situated at the north-east end of the nave, near the pulpit, and to replace it with a new portable solid-oak font, retaining the original font's bowl and cover. There was one letter of objection. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that, when not in use, the font should be positioned at the west end of the church. The Chancellor also authorised the disposal of the stone font, provided that if it could not be used in another church or appropriate setting, it should be buried in the churchyard.

A reordering programme was proposed, including: installation of kitchen and toilets; installation of a ‘heritage display’ and meeting room; creation of ceramic tile heritage pavement; removal of pews; creation of a ringing gallery;  window repairs; clock repairs; restoration of a chest; installation of a sound system; installation of a heating system; repair to gates. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the works. In particular, he excluded the tiled heritage pavement.

The Petitioner requested a memorial designed as an open book, in memory of his brother, to match an existing memorial in memory of his mother. Faculty granted. Chancellor: "… having regard to the exceptional pastoral case made by the petitioner for having a memorial resembling that of the deceased's mother, I would be prepared to authorise one in this instance as an exception to the general rule on the basis that it did genuinely resemble that of the deceased's mother."

Whilst acknowledging the success of a recent major internal reordering of the church, Historic England were unhappy about proposals to install new audio-visual equipment, namely, screens in the aisles, fixed to the pillars, and replacement loudspeakers. The Chancellor was satisfied with the need for the equipment, and agreed to the proposals, subject to conditions that: (1) the screens would have a white or no border, so that they would blend with the white background; (2) the screens would be no wider than the pillars; (3) the Diocesan Advisory Committee should approve the fixings and (4) the loudspeakers should be four steerable beam loudspeakers at high level.

The faculty petition proposed the installation of a new font bowl and also a new stained glass window, which would replace a clear glass window near the font. There were two letters of objection in respect of the window. Applying the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012] (Court of Arches), the Chancellor was satisfied that any harm to the building would be minimal and that the design was appropriate, and he therefore granted a faculty.