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.

Notwithstanding that the incumbent had advised a firm of stonemasons that a faculty would be required, the firm commenced extensive works of restoration of a memorial - the existing headstone and kerb had been removed and there was a large concrete slab installed, all without permission. The Chancellor granted a faculty but asked the stonemasons to undertake a review of the training they give to masons about the Churchyard Regulations and the delegated authority given to the clergy to authorise memorials, and the requirement for faculties granted by Archdeacons or the Chancellor for other works in the churchyard.

The proposal was to hang an ebony and ivory cross above the pulpit, with a small silver plaque nearby. The cross was a gift in memory of two former parishioners. There was one objection from a member of the Parpochial Church Council. As the majority of the Parochial Church Council were in favour of the proposal, the Chancellor granted a faculty.

The PCC decided to replace the late 19th century pipe organ with a digital organ. An application was made for an interim faculty to install the digital organ, but to leave the pipe organ in situ, pending the grant of a permanent faculty. An interim faculty was granted. One parishioner objected to the purchase of the digital organ, principally on the basis of the cost. Faculty granted.

Faculty granted for a new audio-visual system for a Grade I church, to include two monitor screens mounted on mobile trollies; two monitors screens mounted on poles; and three monitor screens mounted on the walls.

The proposal was to place a memorial plaque next to two similar plaques on the west wall inside the church. The plaque was to be in memory of two people: a former curate who had died whilst serving at the church as a result of a road traffic accident, and his son, who had been head chorister at the church and had subsequently joined the army and died on active service in Afghanistan. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the test of exceptionality was satisfied in view of the contributions of the two deceased persons to the life of the church.

The deputy churchwarden applied for a retrospective faculty in respect of the felling of a lime tree in the churchyard, which had become dangerous. The local authority had approved the felling of the tree. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the granting of a faculty, and the majority of the members of the Parochial Church Council supported the felling of the tree. As the parish had not sought List B consent from the Archdeacon under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, it was now necessary for them to obtain a faculty. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner had shown a sufficiently good reason for the felling of the tree, and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition (inter alia) that a replacement tree should be planted.