he petitioner wished to reserve a grave next to that of her late husband. Since before the interment of the petitioner's late husband, the Parochial Church Council had had an informal policy of not supporting any further reservations of graves, in view of the small number of available grave spaces left in the detached burial ground. The Chancellor decided that this was not a case where there were special circumstances to justify him in acting against the established policy of the PCC. He therefore refused to grant a faculty to reserve the grave next to the petitioner's late husband's grave. However, in a note attached to the petition, the Chancellor recorded that he had had a discussion with the parish priest with a view to seeing what could be done by way of pastoral provision. The parish priest agreed that the gravespace next to the grave of the petitioner's husband would be the last space to be used in this burial ground, unless before then it came to be used for the interment of the remains of the petitioner.

The Deputy Chancellor had three matters to consider in relation to an application for a memorial to mark the grave in which the petitioner's wife's ashes were buried: (a) reference on the memorial to the petitioner, still living; (b) a modified version of the poem “Do not stand at my grave and weep”, and (c) an objection by the Parochial Church Council ("PCC") to the type of stone. As to the first, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the proposal, and to leave space for a further inscription.  The Deputy Chancellor did not approve of the design of the proposed memorial, which included some blue stone, and considered that the wording of the version of the poem was 'over personal and inappropriate', but indicated that he would approve  'a more discrete monument with suitably revised wording'.

The petitioners' parents had intended to be buried in the same grave. The Petitioners' mother died in 2008 and was buried in the chosen grave. When the petitioners' father died in 2019, it was discovered a few days before the funeral that the grave of their mother had not been dug sufficiently deep to accommodate a second burial, and so, as a 'temporary measure', the father was buried in another part of the churchyard. The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of their mother's body, so that the grave could be dug deeper to accommodate the burial of their father's body. The Chancellor accepted that a mistake had been made in that the instructions to dig a double depth grave in 2008 had not been followed, and he granted a faculty for the double exhumation and reinterment, conditional upon it being possible to dig the mother's grave deeper, failing which the mother's remains could be exhumed and reinterred in her husband's grave.

A couple had planned to be buried in a double grave. The husband died in 2006 and was duly buried in the grave. His wife died in 2020, but a trial dig two weeks before the planned funeral date made it clear that the husband's coffin had not been buried sufficiently deep to allow the burial of a second coffin with enough earth above it. The undertakers therefore applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the husband's coffin, to enable the grave to be dug deeper, in order to accommodate both coffins at sufficient depth. The Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the granting of a faculty, due to a mistake by the undertakers when the grave was originally dug in 2006.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for exhumation, finding that there were sufficient special circumstances to justify him doing so. The undertakers had failed to ensure that the grave digger had dug the grave sufficiently deep. In consequence of this failure, the coffin had become exposed to the surface at one end, where the ground had sunk. Additionally, the ground anchors supporting the headstone had pierced the top corner of the coffin and the coffin lid was broken or had rotted since burial. The Chancellor directed that the cost of the exhumation, including the faculty fees, should rest with the undertakers.

The Dean of Arches gave leave to appeal on only two of five grounds set out in the application. He also gave directions as to costs. (The petition contained proposals for reordering works in the church. See Re St. John Waterloo [2017] ECC Swk 1)

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for reordering proposals within the early 19th century Grade II* church. The church had been bombed during the Second World War, and had been restored in time for the opening of the nearby Festival of Britain Exhibition of 1951, according to designs of the architect Thomas Ford. The Chancellor conluded that there was no sufficiently clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals which would outweigh the potential harm to the 1951 interior scheme.

A major reordering scheme was proposed for the church. The Twentieth Century Society, though not a party opponent, objected that the proposed scheme would affect the integrity of the original design of the church by the Georgian architect Thomas Ford. The Chancellor took the view that the proposed scheme would have a significant effect on the interior of the church, but he was satisfied that the benefits would outweigh any harm. He accordingly granted a faculty.

Petition for Faculty to authorise a memorial comprising a headstone and kerb stones. Headstone authorised, but not the kerb stones.

The petitioner wished to have the remains of her late father-in-law temporarily exhumed for DNA analysis. She claimed that in 2018 her husband had been wrongly convicted of two rapes in 1983 and 1988. The petitioner's sister-in-law did not believe that her brother had committed the offences of which he had been convicted, but that her father might well have been the perpetrator. The Chancellor considered that the petitioner had made out a case for the temporary disinterment of the remains and sampling of bone fragments for DNA analysis, to establish whether there was a possibility of a miscarriage of justice. He accordingly granted a faculty.