The widow of the former priest who died in office applied for permission to have her husband's ashes interred in a granite casket resting on a concrete slab below the base and to the west of the newly re-positioned font in the baptistery at the eastern end of the south aisle of the church and to erect a white marble plaque set within a timber surround above the casket, which would sit flush with the surrounding timber boarded floor. The Chancellor was satisfied that (1) the interment inside the church would not set a precedent, as the PCC would only support interment in church in the case of the death of a priest in office and (2) the priest's service and the affection in which he was held satisfied the test applicable to the introduction of a memorial plaque into the church.

The Rector and Churchwardens applied for a faculty for the installation of a WC in the north-west corner of the church, the replacement of the pipe organ with an electronic organ, the re-siting of some pews, and the rearrangement of some windows. The only contentious item was the removal of the pipe organ to accommodate the WC facilities. The pipe organ had been installed in the 1950s and was of doubtful provenance. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Petitioners (the Rector and Churchwardens) sought a faculty to authorise the removal of a panel fence erected by neighbours on what was alleged to be churchyard land; to authorise the erection of a post and rail fence within the churchyard boundary; to give a direction as to the ownership of a stone retaining wall on the boundary and as to the responsibility for its maintenance; and to authorise the implementation of recommendations contained in a report from a company of tree consultants concerning trees and shrubs near the boundary. In the course of the proceedings the Objectors withdrew their claim that the fence they had erected was not on churchyard land and removed the fence. A declaration was given that the retaining wall belonged to the churchyard, and the petitioners were given leave to erect a post and rail fence and plant a double width yew hedge on the churchyard side of the new fence. At the end of the judgment is an additional judgment as to costs.

The Chancellor granted a faculty authorising the erection of an extension to the church to provide toilets and storage space. Access to the new facilities would be via the existing north door to the church and thus there would be no impact on the existing interior of the Grade I listed church.

The Vicar and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to permit the creation of a new servery, the removal of a timber narthex screen from the rear of the church and improvements to the toilet facilities. Objections were received from English Heritage and the Church Buildings Council in relation to the removal of the narthex screen. The guidelines contained in the Court of Arches judgment in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] were considered by the Deputy Chancellor. Faculty granted.

The petitioners, husband and wife, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. They did not live in the parish or regularly attend the church, and therefore did not have a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The reason for their application was that a number of relatives were buried in the churchyard. There was a limited number of grave spaces left in the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that, with few grave spaces left, the rights of the parishioners would be prejudiced by the grant of a faculty, and he therefore declined to grant one.

The petitioners, husband and wife, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. They did not live in the parish or attend the church, and therefore did not have a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The reason for their application was that their son and daughter-in-law had reserved a grave next to the plot which the petitioners wished to reserve. There was a limited number of grave spaces left in the churchyard. Although the petitioners had some historic links with the parish, the Chancellor determined that, with few grave spaces left, the rights of the parishioners would be prejudiced by the grant of a faculty, and he therefore declined to grant one.

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.