The petitioner had discovered that the memorial to her husband had not been laid directly over the casket containing his ashes, when she had previously been assured by a churchwarden this that was not the case. (She in fact had taken it upon herself without faculty to move the casket under the memorial.) The petitioner felt that she had been deliberately misled, and she wished to have her husband's ashes exhumed and reinterred in a local cemetery. This had given rise to a breakdown in relationships between the petitioner and the vicar and churchwardens. The petitioner claimed that every time she visited her husband's grave she felt anger and grievance towards the vicar and churchwardens. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment: "The fact that the widow or widower of a person whose remains have been interred in a particular churchyard has strong feelings of anger and grievance towards the incumbent and churchwardens of the particular church cannot justify the exhumation of the remains in question."

The Chancellor granted a faculty the authorise the introduction of 8-10 sheep into one of the three churchyards of the parish, for the purpose of keeping down the vegetation.

The Parochial Church Council (PCC) proposed adding a new porch with glazed doors to provide easier access, a more welcoming entrance, and to minimise draughts. The PCC amended its original design after comments from the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the unlisted church.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the erection a pre-fabricated timber framed building in the community garden at the side of the church. The building would be supported on concrete blocks and would therefore require the provision of a temporary ramp to allow access for the disabled. The judgment contains a discussion on the need for compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

During the course of a major redevelopment (authorised by Faculty) requiring the reordering of the interior of the church to add offices, with a kitchen and lavatories, all to be accessible to the disabled, human remains were discovered during the digging of a trench in the churchyard. Shortly afterwards, some human remains were uncovered inside the church. It being impossible to reinter remains in the closed churchyard, the Chancellor directed that all the remains be stored within the church until such convenient time as all the remains could be reinterred inside the church in the same area where the second set of human remains had been uncovered.

A major reordering was proposed. The Victorian Society objected to the central pews in the nave being made moveable and to the proposal to replace the aisle pews with upholstered chairs. The Society also argued that some of the pew doors, removed at some time within the past 50 years without authority, should be reinstated. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for making the nave pews moveable, but made it a condition of the faculty that doors should be replaced on three rows of pews. He also approved the proposed replacement of the aisle pews with upholstered chairs, as well as the other items of reordering.

The Chancellor considered four applications for faculties to reserve graves in the churchyard. The Chancellor was concerned that there were very few grave spaces left unoccupied, and that the Parochial Church Council had already applied for closure of the churchyard in six months time, which he considered premature. After discussing the approach of other Chancellors to applications for the reservation of graves, the Chancellor decided to grant reservations in two of the present applications, where the applicants were in their 60s and 70s, they were longstanding residents, and they had strong connections with the church. But he refused the other two applications, where the applicants were in their 30s and 40s, did not live in the parish and had little connection with the church. The Chancellor did not consider that having a relative buried in the churchyard was of itself a sufficient reason to grant a faculty to reserve a grave.

In 2013, an Archdeacon's Licence was granted for a temporary reordering of the church by the removal of up to 10 pews at the rear of the church in order to create the opportunity for the Parish to experiment with the more creative and welcoming use of the space created. In 2014, an application was made for a faculty to authorise the permanent removal of the 10 pews, together with other works including installing a retractable projection screen and wiring for a portable projector; replacing the wooden panels in internal porch doors with clear safety glass panels etched with St. Cuthbert's cross; the installation of some stacking chairs; electrical works; and works outside the church. One objection was received. Faculty granted.

The petitioner sought permission to inter the cremated remains of her mother in a grave containing the remains of two members of the family. She also wished to replace the existing worn memorial with a small stone to be laid horizontally on the grave, with a longer inscription in gold lettering and etchings of butterflies. The petitioner had in fact already had the memorial made without seeking permission first. The memorial was made of Corian, which is a man-made material, the primary use of which is for kitchen work tops.The colour was pinkish and flecked with other colours. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the interment of the petitioner's mother's remains, but refused to grant a faculty for the proposed memorial, as too many of its features were outside the Churchyards Regulations, including: the unsuitability of a man-made product and some of the words in the inscription; the colour; the gold lettering; and the overlong inscription (79 words on a stone measuring 1ft 8ins by 2ft).

The petitioner, aged 84, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. She did not live in the parish, but was baptised, confirmed and married at the church, and numbers of her relatives were buried in the churchyard, including her parents, grandparents and great grandparents. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty, because there was limited grave space left; the Parochial Church Council had a policy of not supporting reservations, and they were concerned about managing a diminishing resource. However, the Chancellor felt confident that the petitioner's strong connections with the church would be properly taken into account at the time of her death.