Blackburn Diocesan Board of Finance wished to transfer to Lancashire Museum Services a bell from the church, which had been closed four years previously. A local MP wrote to the Diocesan Registry to say that the bell should be retained in the church because a local group, the Church Kirk Regeneration Trust ("CKRT"), was in the process of completing an assessment of the site, after which they intended to develop proposals for the use of the church building. The Chancellor decided that the matter should not be left open indefinitely. He therefore made an order that the bell should be transferred to the Museum on loan for an interim period expiring on 31 December 2021. Three months before the expiry of the period, CKRT should submit written proposals for the bell for a further decision by the Chancellor. In the absence of any proposals, the bell should remain permanently with the Museum.

The petitioner, the Senior Church Buildings Officer for the Diocese of Blackburn, proposed the removal of the eight bells from the redundant church of St. James Church Kirk, and their reinstallation in the church of St. Cuthbert Over Kellet. St. James Church Kirk had been made redundant in 2016, since when it had been transferred to the Church Kirk Regeneration Trust for community use. Although there were nine objectors (none of whom became parties opponent), the Chancellor granted a faculty. He considered that the consistory court should favour a proposal that would "lead to bells being rung to signify the presence of a worshipping church in the community, and to invite local people to worship there, over one that does not".

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise a black granite memorial in the churchyard: " ... given the presence of so many examples of black granite memorials in this churchyard, it would in my judgment be unconscionable in this case to refuse consent for one more such memorial ..."

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to authorise a shallow excavation in and around a late nineteenth century grave in Gorton churchyard, in order to establish whether the Moors Murderer Ian Brady buried something in a hessian sack in the grave.

The petitioners proposed to remove the church's pipe organ (built in 1878), leaving the front of the casing and its decorative pipes, and to install an electronic organ within the old casing. The organ had not been regularly used for many years and was considered difficult to play. Also, the estimated cost of restoration of the organ was beyond the means of the Parochial Church Council. The space created by the removal of the organ would provide for a vestry and storage room. The British Institute of Organ Studies argued that the casing was an integral part of the organ and that the two should not be separated, though in fact the casing, which matched panels in the church, was a later addition in 1925. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty.

The church had fallen into a state of dereliction in the 1970s and had to be closed. In 2010 a trust was set up to improve the church and grow its congregation. By 2018 there was an average Sunday attendance of 150, but due to the state of the building and lack of heating, the congregation had to meet for worship in a marquee inside the church with portable heating. A major scheme of reordering was proposed, including heating and lighting, toilet and kitchen facilities and the creation of more floor space by the introduction of an upper floor at the west end. Of the amenity societies who were consulted, only the Georgian Group had objections to the proposals, principally concerning the proposed new upper floor space. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that there was a compelling case for the improvements, which would support a now thriving congregation.

The proposal was to rebuild the organ as a hybrid pipe/electronic instrument, involving its pipework being turned to face the nave, with associated structural alterations. There were two parties opponent, plus other objectors. The objections included allegations of irregularity in the tendering process, and questions as to whether the extent and cost of the project was excessive. The Chancellor concluded that the PCC was entitled to choose the proposal it had selected to resolve the longstanding problems with the organ, and he granted a faculty.

This was an interim judgment confined to a preliminary issue of security for costs. The petitioners proposed the installation of telecommunications equipment in the church. There was one objector, who considered that the use of the equipment would be harmful to her health and that of other people. In Re Emmanuel Church, Bentley, the Court of Arches made it clear that it would not normally be appropriate to refuse the grant of a faculty for telecommunications equipment if it met the standards for such equipment laid down in Government guidance, though the Court of Arches envisaged that in a particular case a party opponent might be able to demonstrate by reference to scientific evidence that it would not be appropriate to grant a faculty. The petitioners sought security for costs. It was clear to the Chancellor that if he made an order, the objector might have difficulty in raising the security, as a result of which she would effectively be deprived of her right to be heard. He therefore declined to make an order for security for costs.

There was an application to install telecoms equipment in the tower of the Grade II listed church. The party opponent claimed that the transmission of electronic data by telecoms aerials was generally a threat to health. She also said that she was personally hypersensitive to existing electro-magnetic fields. The Chancellor reiterated the basis of the Court of Arches decision in Re Bentley Emmanuel, Bentley [2006] that in the absence of compelling evidence of a real risk to human health as a result of transmitting radio waves up to the levels set by the United Kingdom Government in their adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines, it would be wrong for the consistory court to adopt more rigorous guidelines than those recommended by the government for application in a secular context.

This decision should be read in conjunction with Re St. James Kidbrooke [2016] ECC Swk 13  and Re St. James Kidbrooke [2016] ECC Swk 16. The petitioners proposed the installation of telecommunications equipment in the church. There were seven objectors, of whom one became a opponent. She objected on the grounds that radio waves and electrical fields would be harmful to human health. The Chancellor gave directions inviting the objector to consider Government guidance on telecommunications systems and the Court of Arches decision in In re Emmanuel Church Bentley (2006), as a result of which he could not refuse a faculty on the grounds of danger to health, if equipment complied with international standards, unless there was some compelling expert evidence to the contrary. He also alerted the objector that she might be putting herself at risk of an application for costs being made against her by the Petitioners. The Chancellor directed that within 14 days the objector should notify the Registry whether (i) she intended to call an expert witness or witnesses, and (ii) she required there to be a hearing.