The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her parents exhumed from the churchyard and reinterred in an unconsecrated burial ground at the Trappist Abbey of Mount St. Bernard, near Coalville in North Leicestershire, where the remains of several members of her husband's family were interred. The petitioner's original reason for seeking exhumation had been that the family home, Quenby Hall, next to the churchyard, had to be sold. But in a revised petition the petitioner asked that a faculty be granted for three reasons: (i) the interments at Hungerton had been a mistake; (ii) it was intended to put the remains in a family grave; and (ii) pastoral reasons. The Chancellor did not accept the arguments and dismissed the petition.

The petitioners sought permission to replace a bench surrounding a tree in the churchyard. They submitted with the petition a report by a firm of arboriculturalists, which indicated that the tree was in a dangerous condition and should be removed. The Chancellor gave directions that he would not grant permission unless the petitioners were able to produce evidence that the tree was not as dangerous as had been suggested in the report. The petitioners submitted a report from a tree expert employed by the borough council, who said that the tree was basically sound, showed "excellent signs of vitality", and a Quantified Tree Risk Assessment had suggested that risk was at a tolerable level. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the new bench, subject to some lower branches of the tree being removed, as recommended by the borough council tree expert.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for (1) the removal of two rows of pews at the west end of the church, in order to create an area of more flexible use; (2) the provision of kitchen facilities in the vestry; (3) a hatch in the vestry screen; and (4) various electrical works.

The church had been seriously damaged by fire in December 2018, and the petitioners saw the restoration of the church as an opportunity to carry our some reordering to meet the future needs of the parish. In the wake of the fire there had been an interim faculty granted for the storage of the pews in the chancel until reinstatement or disposal. The petitioners now requested a faculty for the removal of the fire and water damaged pew platforms, disposal of the pews and a new floor. New seating would be the subject of a separate petition. The Victorian Society objected to the disposal of the pews. (Almost half the original Victorian pews had in fact been removed over time.) The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the benefits of removing the pews and pew platforms outweighed any harm to the church's significance and its aesthetic and
architectural qualities.

The petition proposed various landscaping works in the churchyard, relating to the addition of a churchyard extension. There was a single objection to the removal of a line of fir trees. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the proposed works.

The petitioners wished to replace three family memorials, which were unstable and/or eroded. The Parochial Church Council objected to the replacement of the stones with stones of modern design in the old part of the churchyard. They preferred the original stones to be restored. The Chancellor determined that one of the stones, which was unstable, should be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely. The other two memorials, where the inscriptions were illegible, should each either be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely; or alternatively or else replaced with a new memorial to precisely the same design and dimensions as the existing, with same inscription, and of stone similar in colour to the existing.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed. There were several written objections, but only one party opponent. The Chancellor authorised in principle the majority of the proposals, subject to detailed designs, specifications and costings being approved by the Court or the Diocesan Advisory Committee, and subject to no work being undertaken until 90% of the cost of the works (including fees) had been raised or promised. The remaining items would have to be the subject of further petitions in the light of the current decision.

In 2015, the Chancellor had granted a faculty to authorise several items as part of an ambitious programme of reordering. The present petition sought approval of the four remaining items which the Chancellor did not approve in 2015, namely, installation of a new wooden floor with underfloor heating; the alteration of some pews and the disposal of others; the screening of the vestry; and the introduction of a kitchenette, WC and upper room in the north transept. The Chancellor approved the new flooring and underfloor heating. He did not authorise the new details of the proposed vestry screening, or the kitchenette, WC and upper room, as there needed to be consultation with the local planning authority, Historic England and the Victorian Society. As the proposal regarding the pews had changed, so as to request now permission to remove two-thirds of them, again the Chancellor required the matter to be the subject of a separate petition with further consultation.

In 2015 the parish had embarked on an extensive set of reordering proposals, which had been the subject of faculty petitions in 2015 and 2017.The present application requested an amendment to the 2017 faculty. The petitioners now wished to replace some of the pews with the Alpha SB2M chair, a metal-framed chair upholstered in a beige, wipeable, stain-resistant fabric, instead of the Theo (all wood) chair which had originally been proposed. The Victorian Society argued that a metal-framed upholstered chair would not fit in with the remaining pews. The Chancellor took the view that "no modern chair, however designed, will match a Victorian pew", and he could see "no particular basis for a general rule against upholstered chairs in listed churches." He granted permission for either chair to be installed.

The stained glass of the Victorian east window, designed by the Clutterbuck workshop, had seriously degraded to the extent that some areas of the design had almost disappeared. The petition proposed that the window should be replaced by a new window designed by Thomas Denny. Though it was not part of the present petition, it was proposed that the better parts of the Clutterbuck window should be incorporated into a design in the easternmost window of the north aisle. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the Clutterbuck window. The Chancellor, being mindful that the east window should provide a key liturgical focus in worship, granted a faculty, subject to a condition (inter alia) that the incumbent and churchwarden should within 30 months apply for a faculty for the retention of parts of the Clutterbuck window in the easternmost window of the north aisle.