The petitioners sought a faculty to permit the replacement of the heating system in the Grade I listed church and the removal of the Victorian nave pews and their replacement with chairs. One parishioner and the Victorian Society objected, but neither wished to be a party opponent. The Chancellor decided that the public benefit resulting from the proposals outweighed the harm which would be caused and that therefore a faculty should issue.

The petition proposed the grant of an easement for limited purposes over a church-owned (unconsecrated) lane for the benefit of an adjoining property belonging to the Great Durnford Estate and used for the storage of garden machinery. The owner of another property fronting the lane objected. The Chancellor was satisfied that the terms of the proposed easement were fair and appropriate, and she granted a faculty.

A Faculty had been granted by the Archdeacon for repairs to the pink sandstone of the church tower using a local stone, as recommended by the architect. The architect had subsequently recommended a similar, Scottish stone, which would be cheaper. A director of the local quarry objected to the Scottish stone being used, on the grounds that the local stone was likely to be more suitable. The Chancellor determined that the Faculty should be amended to provide that the PCC might use either stone, subject to the condition that the PCC should consider (a) the advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee that the Scottish stone might weather differently from the other stone on the building (b) the offer by the local quarry to match the price of Scottish stone and (c) the architect’s assessment as to whether the local stone would be acceptable for use at Great Ness.

The petitioner wished to erect a memorial to her late husband. The proposal was for a honed dark grey granite stone with, in the top quarter, a photograph of her husband standing on a beach, holding a surfboard, and the the inscription to be picked out in white. A churchwarden made a formal objection. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not support the application. The Chancellor refused permission for the design as proposed, but said that he would agree to an etching of a surfboard only, and that he would approve the use of a stone lighter than the dark shade of granite proposed. A revised design would have to be approved by the Chancellor before a faculty issued.

The Chancellor agreed to the design of a memorial stone including an etching of two sailboards against a background of the sea, but refused to permit a black stone. Reversing an early decision, he allowed the use of South African grey or Rustenburg grey stone.

The petitioners' daughter had died in 1980 and her ashes had been buried in the churchyard at Ham. The Petitioners had subsequently made their permanent home in Tasmania, but they had purchased the right to be buried in due time in a plot in Kingston General Cemetery. The petitioners wished, on the occasion of the first of them to die, to have their ashes interred in the reserved grave in the cemetery and to have their daughter's ashes exhumed from the churchyard and interred in the same grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The cremated remains of the petitioner's son, a former Royal Marine, had been interred in an area of the churchyard set aside by faculty for the interment of cremated remains. The faculty stated that any interment may be marked by "a ledger stone or vase block". The churchyards regulations provide that "any burial without a headstone may have a horizontal stone ledger 9 inches (or 225mm) square, set flush with the turf." The petitioner wishes to have a headstone, measuring 20" wide by 12" high and 2" deep, on a base plinth, with a horizontal stone ledger measuring 3 feet by 2 feet. Very extensive inscriptions were proposed.The Chancellor was not prepared to grant a faculty, but indicated that he might be prepared to authorise a compromise proposal, in accordance with further advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

After considering the judgments of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Durham in [2018] ECC Dur 2, [2021] Dur 2, and  [2021] Dur 3, the Auditor of the Chancery Court of York refused permission to appeal against the Chancellor's decision that a ledger stone bearing an enamelled photograph should be removed from an area of the churchyard set aside for cremated remains.

In October 2019, the Chancellor had granted a faculty for an upright memorial stone to mark the interment of cremated remains in an area of the churchyard set aside by faculty for cremated remains, notwithstanding that the specification for the memorial was not within the terms of the faculty setting aside the area or within the diocesan churchyard rules.  The memorial was in memory of the petitioner's son, who had been a Royal Marine Commando. A year later a horizontal ledger stone, bearing an enamelled photograph, appeared next to the headstone. The incumbent tried without success to find out from the petitioner how the ledger stone had come to be installed, and so referred the matter, via the Registry, to the Chancellor. The Chancellor directed that the ledger stone should be removed.

A horizontal memorial ledger was introduced without permission into an area of the churchyard set aside for cremated remains. Fixed to the ledger was an enamelled photograph of the deceased, a former soldier, whose ashes were interred in the grave. The Chancellor had previously declined a request for a ledger stone. In January 2021 the Chancellor granted a faculty authorising its removal. The deceased's mother applied for the Chancellor's decision to be set aside on the grounds that there was discrimination against the family, there being other similar memorials in the churchyard. The Chancellor rejected the mother's application. By visiting the churchyard, the Chancellor satisfied himself that there was no other ledger stone in the area for cremated remains. Furthermore, it was inappropriate to allow an enamelled photograph to be affixed to a memorial, as there was 'a risk that others may follow suit, with an incremental detrimental effect on the whole character of the churchyard'.