The Petitioner wished to install a memorial in the churchyard in memory of his late wife. The proposed memorial was a headstone and kerbs, the proposed stone being polished paradiso granite, described as “a swirling mixture of pink, grey, red and black colours in a strongly-defined tortoiseshell-type pattern.” The Parochial Church Council objected to the proposed type of memorial and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the grant of a faculty. The concerns were as to the colour, the polished finish and the inclusion of kerbstones. The petitioner produced a “petition” signed by several people purporting to support the application for a faculty. The Chancellor determined that such petition was inadmissible. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow a headstone of paradiso granite, provided that the stone had a matt finish, but he refused to permit the installation of kerbs.

The Rector and Churchwardens sought a faculty for the sale of a fifteenth century religious painting portraying the betrayal of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. The painting was so valuable that the Parochial Church Council was unable to afford to insure the painting or provide an adequate security system. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Council for the Care of Churches objected to the disposal of the painting by sale. The Chancellor was satisfied that the valuable painting could not be kept safe in the small rural church and granted a faculty allowng the painting to be sold to an art gallery or museum.

The petitioner wished to install a replacement memorial on his parents' grave. The design included images of a dove, a stairway to heaven and two swans. The inscription included a verse of poetry written by the petitioner's daughter and it ended with an x, the symbol of a kiss. There was an objection that the design would not be in keeping with the part of the churchyard where the memorial would be located. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the x should be omitted from the inscription.

The petitioners wished to replace 75 wooden upholstered chairs with 75 lightweight metal and upholstered Alpha SB2M chairs, which are more easily moveable and stackable. The Church Buildings Council objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He took the view that, as upholstered chairs had been used in the church for upwards of 12 years, their replacement with the proposed new upholstered chairs would meet a need and result in minimal change in the overall appearance of the church.

The petitioners wished to fell a holly tree in the churchyard, because the roots were damaging a table-top tomb dated 1791. They also wished to fell a failing ash tree and to reduce the crowns of two further holly trees encroaching on graves. A report by experts said that either the tomb or the holly tree next to it should be removed. There were living descendants of those commemorated by the tomb who did not want the tomb disturbed. The Chancellor decided that the preservation of the tomb in situ was more important than the preservation of the holly tree. He also agreed to the removal of the ash tree. As regards the remaining two holly trees, the Chancellor required to petitioners to take expert advice about more modest proposals for pruning the two trees.

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, in order to promote community development and flexibility of worship. The Victorian Society was concerned about the replacement of all the nave pews with new moveable pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items in the petition, apart from the total replacement of all the nave pews. He was content (as was the Victorian Society) for replacement of pews at the front of the nave near the new proposed altar platform, but he invited the parish to consider whether some of the Victorian pews, particularly those with umbrella stands, could be retained towards the back of the nave, so that visitors to the church could be aware of what was in place before the re-ordering.

The petitioner wished to have her late husband's cremated remains exhumed and reinterred in Scotland, on a property that the deceased had acquired in 1962. Four relatives and a friend of the deceased objected. They contended that the petitioner did not like them putting floral tributes and cards on the grave and had been observed removing flowers and cards, and that the petitioner's motive for moving the remains to Scotland was to put them where the objectors would find it difficult to put tributes on the deceased's grave. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment and urged restraint on both sides, advising the objectors not to put cards on the grave and expressing the hope that the petitioner would not to remove flowers placed by the objectors.

The four petitioners (one of whom wished to be cremated) petitioned to reserve exclusive rights of burial for 30 years in a triple-depth grave next to their parents' grave. The churchyard only had space for burials for 20 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited the reservation to 20 years.

The petitioners wished to reserve a double-depth grave in the churchyard. In 2016 the Parochial Church Council had decided on a policy of not supporting further reservations of grave spaces, owing to the relatively small number of available spaces left. Though granting a faculty on the particular facts of the present case, the Chancellor took the view that the period of a reservation should not  extend beyond the time when there would be about five years' worth of space left available. In the present case the Deputy Chancellor decided that the appropriate time limit to be placed on the reservation should be six years. The Deputy Chancellor commented that there had been a number of informal reservations allowed by a previous incumbent and that these informal reservations had no legal effect, so that the graves informally reserved were available for burials of anyone having a right of burial.

A faculty had been granted for some reordering work at the church. Subsequently, the team vicar had received a letter of objection within the period for objections, but it was not sent to the registry before the expiry of time for objections and issue of the faculty. To ensure justice to all concerned, the Chancellor therefore set aside his decision pending consideration of the objection. Having considered the letter of objection, the Chancellor determined that the likely harm to the church was minimal and that any such harm would be outweighed by the benefit to the community. He therefore directed the issue of a faculty.