The Vicar and Churchwardens sought a faculty to authorise the laying of a drain under a path between the church and the public sewer (with a view to servicing  a new toilet in the church at some time in the future); improvements to the paths and driveway serving the church; and the moving of the seven memorials in the northern section of the churchyard, in order to allow that area of the churchyard to be used as an open space for community use. There were seven letters of objection, but no objector wished to be a party to the proceedings. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The principal practical point to emerge is that the notice displayed outside a church of a faculty petition, under Rule 6(4)(b)(ii) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2000, will not be considered to have been displayed properly if displayed on a noticeboard inside a locked porch, even if the public may be able to see into the porch through an iron grille door. There is also a useful obiter dictum on the relationship between the Faculty Jurisdiction and planning and advertising controls.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her brother exhumed from the grave containing the remains of their parents. The petitioner's sister and the deceased's daughter had arranged the interment without the knowledge of the petitioner. This had caused some consternation in the rest of the family, because the deceased had been estranged from the family and they thought it inappropriate for him to be buried with his parents as he was alleged to have subjected his mother to an act of physical violence. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, having decided that the petitioner's application did not meet the test of exceptionality envisaged in the case of Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, so as to justify allowing exhumation. Nor did the petitioner's application "amount to a sufficiently good reason by reference to a ‘right thinking’ member of the church at large" (referencing the decision in Re Christ Church Alsager [1998] Chancery Court of York).

Part of the cremated remains of the petitioner's late partner had been interred in the churchyard and part in a grave reserved in the cemetery by the petitioner. The petitioner applied for permission to exhume the ashes in the churchyard and reinter them in the grave in the cemetery. The petitioner's estranged daughters had been under the impression that all the ashes had been interred in the churchyard, in accordance with the deceased's wishes. One of the daughters, on discovering what had happened, petitioned to have the deceased's ashes exhumed from the cemetery and reinterred in the churchyard. The petitioner thereupon sought an amendment of his petition to preserve the status quo. The Chancellor decided that the status quo should be maintained, there being no sufficient justification for allowing either exhumation.

The proposed works included the installation of four toilets and a foldaway servery at the east end of the north aisle of the Grade I listed church. The works required the removal of 18 pews with associated pew platforms, together with the removal of central heating and pipework from the pews. The floor would be excavated and a new floor laid with underfloor heating installed. Two memorial features would need to be relocated. The Victorian Society, whilst accepting that some pews needed to be removed, regarded 18 as too many. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals, which would provide some much-needed basic facilities, and granted a faculty.

The petitioners' father died in 1998 and his cremated remains were interred in the southern end of the churchyard, near the grave of his grandparents. The petitioners' mother died in 2020, having made a codicil to her will, in which she expressed a desire to be buried and not cremated. She was buried in the burial area at the northern end of the churchyard. The petitioners now wished to move their father's cremated remains to the grave of their mother, in order to fulfil the hope expressed by their mother in the codicil that her husband's remains might be taken up and buried in her grave. The Chancellor did not consider that there were exceptional reasons to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation and reinterment: "Mr Cooper is already buried close to family members and so the family grave consideration does not give rise to exceptional circumstances. "

Faculty granted for repairs to tower louvres. One objector with reservations about the operation of the faculty system and as to the quality of works commissioned by the Parochial Church Council. Chancellor satisfied that the works were needed and that the proposed manner of performing them was appropriate

Leave to appeal granted by the Dean of the Arches in respect of a decision by the Chancellor not to allow a Gaelic inscription on a memorial unless accompanied by an English translation.

The petitioner's parents had both been born in the Irish Republic and had been active in serving the Irish community, both in Coventry and nationally. Following her mother's death, the petitioner sought a memorial, of which the significant features would be a Celtic Cross (which would extend beyond the top of the memorial) containing an emblem of the Gaelic Athletic Association,  and the Irish Gaelic words “In ár gcroíthe go deo”, meaning “In our hearts forever”. The Chancellor took the view that a cross protruding above the memorial would have had a 'jarring impact' on the churchyard as a whole and that an incised cross would be more appropriate, to which the petitioner agreed. However, the Chancellor refused to allow an inscription in Gaelic without a translation, which would be incomprehensible to most people visiting the churchyard, and might be misconstrued as a slogan or political statement. He therefore granted a faculty for a memorial with an incised cross and for the Gaelic words to be included, provided that an English translation was also inscribed.

This was an appeal against a decision of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Coventry (in Re St. Giles Exhall [2020] ECC Cov 1), who granted a faculty for a memorial which included a short inscription in Gaelic, but subject to a condition that there should be an English translation beneath the Gaelic inscription, to which the petitioner and her family objected. The Court of Arches heard the appeal on 24 February 2021 and  announced the same day its decision to allow the appeal, reserving its reasons to a written judgment, which was delivered on 16 June 2021.