The petitioners (the Rector and Churchwardens) sought to dispose by sale of the painting "The Descent of Christ from the Cross", said to be from the workshop of Pieter Coecke Van Aelst, a sixteenth century Flemish artist. The painting is part of a triptych, the wings of which are in the Californian Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco. The Church Buildings Council objected to the proposal. In Re St Lawrence, Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014], Court of Arches, considered by the Chancellor: 'When I ... pose to myself the question:"Have the petitioners demonstrated factors of such qualitative weight as to outweigh the strong presumption against sale?" I find that I am driven to the conclusion that the only proper answer to that question is "No"'. Faculty refused.

The proposals were to install lavatories and re-locate the kitchen servery, removing 10 (of a total of 60) pews from the end of the nave and 6 pews from the east end of the nave. The objective was to improve health and safety, create a better area for families during baptism, and to provide a more usable area for a wide range of activities alongside the provision of worship. The Victorian Society objected to the number of pews to be removed, but it did not become a party opponent. The Chancellor determined that a moderate degree of harm would be caused to the building, but that this could be justified by the church's needs.

The petitioner's late father had been buried in grave C17 in the churchyard. There had been an understanding by the petitioner that his mother would be buried in grave C18, next to her husband, and the petitioner had applied to reserve grave C19. The petitioner discovered that someone else had been buried in grave C18. He therefore applied for his father's remains to be exhumed and reinterred in the row behind row C, row D, so that the petitioner and his parents would in due time all be buried next to each other. On the recommendation of the gravedigger, the Chancellor granted a faculty authorising a trench to be dug from the petitioner's father's grave to the grave space behind, so that the coffin could then be slid into the new position in row D. The Chancellor emphasised the importance of an up to date and accurate churchyard plan being kept in the church.

The petition sought approval for the replacement of moveable audio-visual equipment with permanently fixed equipment in a Grade I listed late 14th century church, which would involve the removal of three pews to make room for a mixing desk. There were two parties opponent and three other objectors and the matter was determined on written representations. Faculty granted subject to conditions that (1) all equipment was to be indelibly marked, (2) certain equipment should be fitted with tracker devices and (3) the mixing desk should have front and sides made from the pews that would be removed.

A faculty was sought for reordering, which included works to the south porch and the west end of the nave of the Grade I listed church, including the repositioning of three rows of pews and adjustment of floor levels. The Chancellor granted a faculty

The petitioner applied for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a memorial which had already been installed in the churchyard. The memorial had features outside the current Churchyards Regulations. The stone was pale grey granite and the design included a heart, a cherub, roses and a scroll. The background of the stone had a textured finish and the heart and scroll were smooth and reflective. The Deputy Chancellor considered that there was an incongruity between the stone and the other stones in the churchyard surrounding it. For pastoral reasons, however, the Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, but subject to conditions that all coloured paint should be removed from the memorial and that numerous personal artefacts on the grave should be removed within three months and should not at any time be replaced with others.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her husband exhumed from the churchyard at Leyland and reinterred in a family grave in the churchyard at Wrea Green containing four members of the family, which had been her husband's wish. But at the time of her husband's death, the petitioner, who had suffered from leukaemia for some time and was now in hospital, and had her husband's remains interred at Leyland, whilst she 'was in shock (he died suddenly) and therefore did not act rationally or upon his wishes'. She wished her cremated remains in due course to be buried in the family grave together with the cremated remains of her husband. The Chancellor considered that this was a case where there were exceptional circumstances to justify granting a faculty. Firstly, the reinterment would be into an existing family grave and, secondly, there had been a mistake by the petitioner in her shock and grief, in that her husband had expressed a wish to be buried in the family grave at Wrea Green, and she now wished for corrective action to be taken.

The petitioner's brother had died in 1982, aged 26, and was buried in the churchyard. His widow had subsequently had another partner for over 30 years, but had always wished to be buried in the same grave as her late husband. In 2001, the petitioner's mother had died, and her ashes were interred in her son's grave. The widow accepted this interment at the time, as she believed that the grave was single depth, and that she would have to be buried in the adjoining grave, which she believed her father-in-law had reserved for her. When her father-in-law died, the petitioner wished her father's ashes to be buried with the ashes of his wife in their son's grave. The son's widow objected, as she had discovered that the grave was double depth, and she thought that any further interment of ashes would inhibit her own burial in her late husband's grave.  The Chancellor determined that the petitioner's father's ashes could be buried in his son's grave in such a position as not to inhibit the interment of the widow's body in due course and that, if the widow were to petition to reserve a right to burial in the grave, a faculty would be granted.

The petitioners' mother had arranged in 2015 for the interment of her husband's ashes at St. Andrew Netherton, following a funeral at a nearby Roman Catholic Church. The petitioners' mother died in 2022, having previously expressed to the petitioners her wish for her cremated remains to be buried near to the graves of relatives in the cemetery at Burry Port in South Wales. She had also requested that her husband's ashes should be moved to be buried with her ashes at Burry Port. Taking all the various factors of the case together, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty to allow the petitioners' father's ashes to be buried with the ashes of his wife next to other family members whose remains were buried in the cemetery.

The parish council decided to make a donation for the laying of cabling in the churchyard for external lighting to the church, and an external power point for Christmas lights. The work was carried out without faculty by an electrician who was a member of the parish council and also a  member of the PCC. The petition sought an order in respect of the unauthorised laying of the cable. In his judgment, the Chancellor emphasises the need for observance of the faculty jurisdiction, in view of such matters as the risk of disturbance of human remains; the need to give parishioners an opportunity of objecting; the need for planning permission; and insurance and safety issues.