Having already granted a faculty to authorise the replacement of pews with chairs and the removal and disposal of the pulpit and the font, the Chancellor delivered this judgment to explain his reasons for granting the faculty. The reason for the proposals was to enable the church to accommodate two children's groups which had previously met in a now dilapidated building in the churchyard. The pews were plain and had no particular value historically or artistically; the pulpit  was freestanding and not original to the building, being dated 1924; and the font had been heavily painted with a matt cream paint which had obscured its decorative features. Neither the pulpit nor the font were of historic value.

A faculty was sought for the installation of glazed timber screening to the south side transept chapel; disabled access to the chapel; and a new heating system; as well as a confirmatory faculty for the installation of a Frank Bodley reredos above the altar, which had been donated from a redundant church in Liverpool. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that the screening of the chapel, whilst constituting some modest harm to the building, would not cause a significant impact, and the work would be reversible in the future, if the need arose. Also, any harm would be outweighed by the benefit of having a useful small worship or meeting space which was economic to heat.

The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned to install a heraldic hatchment with the coat of arms of the Collins family of Adlestrop Park in the nave or in the north transept of the church. There were already in the church three hatchments of the Leigh family, who had owned Adlestrop Park from 1553 until it was sold to the Collins family during the last century. A parishioner objected that "Church hatchments were to mark the death of a ‘Lord of the Manor’ ... only a family which has strong ties over several generations should have such a display.”  The Chancellor was satisfied that hatchments, if displaying legally authorised Coats of Arms, can still with sufficient reason be introduced by Faculty. [Note: Jane Austen is believed to have regularly visited Adlestrop.]

The petitioner applied for a faculty to put kerbs around her late husband's grave. Footings for the kerbs had already been laid without a faculty first being obtained. Although there were several sets of kerbs in other parts of the churchyard, a decision had been made by the church in 1987 not to allow kerbs in the particular row where the petitioner had applied to reserve a grave, because the path at the foot of the graves narrowed, and to allow kerbs along the row would ultimately restrict the path and inhibit access for maintenance machinery. The widow had agreed at the time she reserved the grave that kerbs would not be allowed. The Deputy Vicar General dismissed the petition and directed that the kerb footings should be removed.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her father, who died in 2000, exhumed from Orford churchyard and reinterred? in the grave of her mother, whose ashes had been interred in Warrington Cemetery about 18 months before the death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's mother had been a Roman Catholic and her father had been an Anglican. The petitioner claimed that, at the time of her father's death, the family mistakenly thought he had to be buried in an Anglican grave. She also stated that the family now wished to have the couple united in a family grave. The Chancellor decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: the issue as to where the petitioner's father could be buried could have been decided shortly after his death; a long period had elapsed since the interment; and there was no support for the exhumation from the parish.

The Dean of Arches allowed an appeal against the decision of the Chancellor of the Diocese, who refused to grant a confirmatory faculty for a memorial placed inside the church. The Dean pointed out that a faculty for a memorial inside a church should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. He found that in the present case there were exceptional circumstances, as the persons commemorated had been substantial benefactors of the church and the village over many years.

The petitioners wished to replace stolen roof lead and the remaining lead covering with a GRP (fibreglass) product. The Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic England, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Church Buildings Council objected to GRP being used to replace the whole of the lead from the roof of the Grade I listed church. The Chancellor took the view that the petitioners had failed to produce a clear, logical and convincing cased for the proposed works and he refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her father and reinter them in the grave of her mother in the same churchyard. The Chancellor decided that neither a desire to have both parents' remains together, nor the state of the location where the father's remains were interred, were enough to amount to special circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation. Nor was there any element of mistake as to the places of interment. He therefore refused to grant a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a new heating system.

The petitioners wished to reserve a single-width, double-depth grave space. They did not live in the parish, but attended the church occasionally and supported the church financially. Some parishioners objected to graves being reserved, saying that interments should be on a "first come, first served" basis. The Chancellor determined that it was appropriate to grant a faculty in this case: the petitioners had shown a sufficient connection with the church; at the time when the petition was lodged, the PCC had no formal policy about grave reservations; the PCC had supported the petition; and there was space in the churchyard for 20-30 years of burials.