The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to authorise the temporary removal from the vault beneath the Sheldon Chapel of a skull, possibly that of William Shakespeare, to enable the carrying out of a detailed archaeological investigation to include laser scanning, radio carbon dating, and an anthropological assessment. The Chancellor found no scholarly or other evidence to support the story that the skull was that of William Shakespeare.

When the petitioner was 16 years old, her mother had died. Five years later she wished to install a memorial over her mother's grave. She approached a local stonemason, chose a design, and the stone was erected at the grave. The petitioner had been unaware that permission was needed to erect the memorial, and the mason did not check that permission had been obtained before erecting the memorial. The memorial was an oval shaped grey slate stone on a rectangular base with an incised trough planter. At one side of the base was an image of a bumble bee and on the other side a Celtic cross. There were objections to the stone. The petitioner applied for a faculty to retain the stone. The two churchwardens became parties opponent. After considering the approaches of other Chancellors in a number of other judgments, the Chancellor decided not to grant a faculty and that the stone should be removed. He indicated that if the petitioner chose a stone within the churchyards regulations, he would permit the designs of the bumble bee and Celtic cross and the same inscription, subject to part of the inscription being in quotation marks (for reasons which will be apparent from the judgment).

The Petitioners sought to reserve a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of their daughter. The priest in charge and churchwardens became parties opponent, objecting to the reservation on the grounds that the PCC had for many years had a policy of resisting the reservation of gravespaces and of operating a “first come first served” approach, which many parishioners had followed. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty on the basis that, where there was a long-standing PCC policy in place, he should not override that policy unless there was an exceptional reason for doing so. To grant a faculty in this case "would be to create the risk of real injustice to others who in circumstances of loss have themselves accepted the existing policy".

An application had been made by a private individual for a restitution order against the Archdeacon, requiring him to replace the pews which had been removed from the church in the summer of 2020, on the grounds that their removal was not permitted by a licence for temporary minor reordering, and was therefore unlawful. The Archdeacon had not actually given permission for the pews to be removed. They had been removed by the Churchwardens and Parochial Church Council (PCC), who subsequently undertook to return the pews to the church in October 2021, but did not do so until December 2021. The Commissary General gave directions for the Archdeacon to be removed as the respondent and replaced by the Churchwardens and PCC. The Commissary General also considered it appropriate, in the interests of certainty, to issue a restitution order, and he directed that the new respondents should pay the costs of the application and of the hearing.

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.