In Re St. Leonard Hythe [2023] ECC Can 2, the petitioner had applied for a restoration order in respect of an altar which had been moved to the head of the nave, on the basis that no lawful authority had been granted for such use. The Commissary General had dismissed the petitioner's application. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal. The Dean of the Arches refused to grant leave to appeal. The main ground of appeal was that it was unlawful to move an altar in a church without the authority of a faculty. The Dean referred to Canon F2, which states that, if there is any dispute as to where an altar is to be positioned, it should be determined by the Ordinary. In relation to another ground of appeal, that the altar had been installed without authority, the Dean pointed out that, as the altar had been installed more than six years ago, the court had no jurisdiction to make a restoration order (Section 72, Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018).

The petitioner applied for a restoration order in respect of a portable altar which had been used on the chancel steps at the head of the nave, on the basis that no lawful authority had been granted for such use. Shortly after the application, the newly arrived priest-in-charge approached the archdeacon, seeking a Temporary Minor Reordering Licence, to allow the altar to be used occasionally for a trial period, after which the Parochial Church Council could decide whether it wished to apply for a faculty to make the arrangement permanent. The archdeacon granted a licence. The petitioner claimed that the granting of the licence was an 'abuse' of legal process to defeat his application. The Commissary General disagreed and dismissed the petitioner's application. If the church council applied for a faculty to make the arrangement permanent, the petitioner would then have an opportunity to object.

The petitioners, who had lived in the parish since 1978, applied to reserve a double grave. At an unspecified date since 1978, the PCC had adopted a policy of not supporting future grave reservations. The Chancellor granted a faculty, as he was satisfied that the couple had been given the impression before the policy was adopted that they would be able to be buried in the churchyard: "It would be unreasonable, in my view in all the circumstances not to honour that indication."

The petitioners wished to amend the Churchyards Regulations in relation to the parish of Minety only. The proposal was to replace Regulation 8, which provides (inter alia) for interments to be marked by memorials laid horizontal just below the level of the surrounding turf, with a new Regulation 8 including authority for the incumbent to give permission for an upright memorial (but not a cross) in the area set aside for cremated remains where cremated remains are interred next to the adjacent wall. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the removal from the churchyard of a tree which was in danger of causing damage to an adjoining property.

The petitioners proposed the creation of an extension and new entrance linked to the west door of the church, including kitchen and WC facilities, and also pew removal and extensive reordering of the main part of the church building. The proposals were opposed by a number of amenity societies and the Local Planning Authority, though only the Victorian Society became a party opponent. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Whilst he saw a clear justification for some parts of the proposals, he did not consider that, overall, the justification outweighed the potential harm to the Grade II* church.

The Grade I church of St. Leonard Old Langho is closed and vested in the Churches Conservation Trust, but the churchyard remains the responsibility of the Parochial Church Council. The vicar of the parish in which the church lies applied for a retrospective faculty to authorise the retention of two benches placed in the churchyard by persons unknown without the authority of a faculty or List B approval under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. Retrospective approval under List B is not possible, hence the need for a faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but stated that in future he would "expect any PCC to petition for the removal of any unauthorised benches which they may find within their churchyard, leaving it to the person or persons who placed each bench there to petition for its retention, and to justify their conduct in having proceeded without prior lawful authority."

The petitioner wished to introduce into the churchyard a polished dark grey granite memorial in the shape of a traditional Gypsy caravan. On the front would be a representation of the double doors of such a caravan with blank windows and the doors flanked on either side by the engraved representation of a lit hurricane lamp. An inscription would be placed on the left-hand door, with the right hand door capable of bearing a further inscription following a later interment in the grave. It was also proposed that on the reverse of the stone there would be a representation of the rear window of a Gypsy caravan, with curtains at the window and a suspended cage containing two songbirds visible through the window. It was also requested that below the window there should be etched a representation of a horse-drawn two-wheeled waggon. It was proposed that the etched designs and inscription should be silvered. The deceased had lived all his life in a traditional Gypsy caravan. The Deputy Chancellor approved the  memorial, with the exception of the representation of a waggon on the reverse side.

The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty to permit various items of reordering in order to provide facilities in the church for a wide range of church and community events in what is a fairly isolated village. The proposals included 2 WCs, a "kitchen pod", a new staircase and ringing floor, new cupboards, replacement of the pews with wooden unupholstered chairs, moving of the font, new underfloor heating, new flooring, new lighting, solar panels, an air source heat pump, and new water and sewage services. A local objector claimed that no detailed costings had been carried out, and he challenged the assumptions about community use. The amenity societies involved had reservations about the kitchen facilities being enclosed, because of the impact of the walls on the surrounding church fabric. The Chancellor granted a faculty, to enable the petitioners to move forward with obtaining funding, but he reserved a decision as to whether the kitchen facilities should be enclosed or not until he had visited the church and made a final decision.

The churchwardens wished to remove from the churchyard a headstone placed on a grave after permission was refused by the Area Dean. The owner of the memorial (himself a stonemason) claimed that he did not receive notice of refusal until after the memorial had been installed. The memorial was of black or very dark grey polished stone and comprised an upright stone with kerbs and a ledger stone covering the grave. The Chancellor decided that, if the owner of the memorial had gone about things correctly, she would have authorised the stone. Therefore she dismissed the petition for its removal, but required the owner of the memorial to pay the costs of the proceedings.