A boy aged 13, a keen footballer, had been killed when knocked off his bicycle by a speeding motorist. He was buried in the churchyard. The family wished to erect a memorial which included features outside the diocese's Churchyard Rules, namely, polished black granite with gold lettering; in the top left quarter, a large image of a young man with a football at his feet, standing in front of a stairway leading to heaven, with light beams at the top of the stairway radiating out from a heart; in the top right quarter an inscription giving names, dates and relationships; and in the lower half of the memorial a poem 8 lines long and containing 90 words. The Chancellor accepted that there were already several memorials of polished black stone with gilded lettering in the churchyard and that a faculty should not be refused for another. However, his decision was that a faculty would be granted if there was an acceptable smaller image, and if a much shorter inscription could be agreed for the lower half of the memorial, the revised design to be approved by the court.

The Parochial Church Council applied for an injunction to prevent the London Borough of Hounslow from developing a piece of land near the church, claiming that the land was consecrated, and historically had been part of the churchyard, notwithstanding that the Borough Council and its predecessor council had been registered with absolute title in respect of the particular piece of land for 69 years. The Chancellor dismissed the application.

This judgment arose out of a hearing before the Chancellor in Re St. George Hanworth [2016] ECC Lon 1. The issue of costs was referred to the Deputy Chancellor, who determined that the bulk of the costs of the London Borough of Hounslow should be paid by the Parochial Church Council.

In the late 1980s, an upright memorial had been introduced into the churchyard, and the grave had been surrounded with pre-cast concrete edging and covered with white chippings. The petitioner now wished to replace the concrete edging with stone kerbs. Although kerbs would not normally be approved, the Chancellor granted a faculty. It would be inappropriate to require the removal the concrete edging, which had been in place for over 20 years, and the new kerbs would not be any more obtrusive.

There was an application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of an illuminated cross placed on the western face of the church tower two years previously, under an Archdeacon's Licence for Temporary Reordering (a procedure which the Chancellor considered inappropriate). The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty for a term of 5 years, subject to consent being obtained under the Advertising Regulations, and subject to the cross being illuminated on not more that 28 days in each calendar year, with leave to apply for further extensions of 5 years, without the need for a further faculty petition.

The petitioner's father had died  in 1989 and his cremated remains had been buried in the churchyard. The petitioner's mother died in 2022 and her body had been buried in another part of the churchyard. The petitioner wished to have his father's ashes exhumed and placed in his mother's grave. The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty, the petitioner's mother having throughout her life held the mistaken belief that she could be buried with her husband, and the desirability of supporting a 'family grave' as set out in Re Blagdon Cemetery[2002] Fam 299.

The Chancellor granted a Faculty to authorise the replacement of the existing wet gas-fired central heating system with a new gas-fired system with new pipework and radiators. There was one party opponent, a member of the PCC, who had argued, inter alia, that the proposed system, unlike an electrical system, would not meet carbon emission reduction targets. But the Diocesan Advisory Committee had considered alternative proposals and recommended the gas-fired wet system as the most appropriate.

The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the cremated remains of his father, who died in 1986, from New Mills churchyard and reinterment at Thornsett Cemetery in a plot which the petitioner had reserved. The petitioner's mother had recently died, but her cremated remains had not yet been interred. The petitioner stated that his mother had expressed a wish for her cremated remains to be buried at Thornsett. The petitioner therefore sought to respect his mother’s wishes and also unite his parents’ remains at Thornsett. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. The cremated remains of both parents could be reunited at New Mills. The Chancellor did not consider that the wish to create a new family grave elsewhere justified the disturbance of an existing family grave.

The proposal was to add a single-storey extension at the north-west corner of the Grade I listed church, to provide a lobby, kitchen, servery, a Garden Room, a storeroom and toilets. Fourteen members of the congregation submitted letters of objection in response to the public notices. The main ground for objection was the potential impact of the extension on the Memorial Garden which it would overlook, that it would be a cause of upset to the family members of those whose ashes are interred there and prevent its use for quiet reflection and remembrance. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposed works and granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought an amendment to the judgment in Re St. George Newcastle [2020] ECC New 2, which related to an extension to the north-east corner of the church and works in the churchyard. One of the conditions contained in that judgment was that no work should commence until all necessary funding was in place.  Restrictions imposed since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2020 had restricted the ability of the petitioners to engage in fundraising activities. They therefore requested that the condition concerning funding should be relaxed. The Chancellor determined to allow the petitioners to proceed with the construction of a new boundary wall, and he extended the period for completion of the work for three years, but he declined a request to permit foundations for the extension to be laid and, being concerned that the church had only very limited funds in hand, he was not prepared to otherwise waive the main condition that no works should commence until all necessary funds were available.