The cremated remains of a member of the family concerned in this matter had recently been interred in her parents' grave. The interment had been arranged by certain members of the family, who did not discuss the location of the interment with other members of the family, who, as it turned out, objected to the last deceased being interred in her parents' grave, and they applied for a faculty for exhumation. The Chancellor ruled that the interment should not have taken place in the parents' grave without the agreement of all of the next of kin, and accordingly granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment elsewhere.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to allow kerbs to be placed around a grave. Kerbs were not permitted under the Diocesan Churchyards Regulations, and the Chancellor could find no strong reason to depart from that policy in relation to this particular application.

In the aftermath of the death of George Floyd on 25 May 2020 and the Black Lives Matter protests around the world, a statue of Edward Colston, who had been involved in the slave trade in the seventeenth century, was pulled down by protestors from its pedestal in Bristol and thrown into the harbour. The church of St. Mary Redcliffe contains four tall windows in the north transept. The illustrations in the stained glass depict the Corporal Acts of Mercy and the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The panels at the bottom of the four windows showed that the windows were dedicated to Edward Colston. There was concern at the church that protestors might try to damage the windows, and it was decided to remove the commemorative panels, with a view to replacing them with stained glass images which would not connect the windows with Colston. They applied for a confirmatory faculty, which the Chancellor granted: " ... the contrast between [Colston's] own life and the seven Corporal Acts of Mercy is too jarring to be acceptable in a church."

The local branch of the Royal British legion wished to place a war memorial in the churchyard at its own expense. There were two objectors (neither of them a party opponent), one objecting to the proposed type of stone, and the other objecting to the proposed location of the memorial, the colour of it and the lettering. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

A Faculty was granted for: (1) the removal of two short pews at the west end of the south aisle of a Grade I 14th century church and provision of additional bookshelf units; and (2) the removal of the rearmost pew on the south side of the nave to provide additional space for wheelchair users. The Chancellor, considered the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013], and determined that, "The selective removal of a very small number of pews will not affect the character of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest."

The petitioners wished to exhume the ashes of their mother, Mrs. Rose, from Roughan churchyard and reinter the ashes in Beyton churchyard. At the time of her death, Mrs. Rose’s children had decided to inter their mother’s ashes in her parents’ grave at Rougham. Mrs. Rose’s siblings had been ‘furious’ that the funeral had taken place and that their sister’s ashes had been interred in their parents’ grave without them being informed, and they refused to accept an apology from the petitioners. Owing to the family tension, the petitioners felt that the only solution was to exhume Mrs. Rose’s ashes and inter them in a different churchyard with the ashes of her husband, who had recently died. Mrs. Rose’s siblings at first objected to the exhumation, but later withdrew their objection. The Chancellor considered that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to allow a family grave to be created for the remains of Mrs. Rose and her husband.

The petitioner applied for a confirmatory faculty to allow the retention of gravel placed over his late wife's grave. The gravel was placed over a membrane and retained by metal edging. Neither the Diocesan Advisory Committee nor the Parochial Church Council supported the work. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty on the grounds of potential future maintenance problems and the fact that to allow the gravel to remain might encourage others to wish to lay gravel in the churchyard. The Chancellor directed that the gravel was to be replaced with turf by the petitioner within three months, failing which the churchwardens were authorised to do the work.

The petitioner wished to introduce into the churchyard a memorial to her late husband. The petitioner’s husband had been brought up in a Jewish family and the design of the stone included a Star of David symbol. The Chancellor had to consider whether such a symbol was appropriate in a Christian churchyard. He decided that religious symbols other than a Christian cross should not ordinarily be allowed in a churchyard and he therefore refused to grant a faculty permitting the Star of David symbol.

The petitioner was a world-renowned influenza virologist with a particular interest in the 1918 Spanish Influenza strain, a type of avian influenza. In view of the concern in 2007 regarding the avian H5N1 virus, the petitioner wished to exhume the body of Sir Mark Sykes, who had died from Spanish Influenza in Paris in 1919. Samples from previous victims of the 1918 disease had been of insufficient quality for the petitioner's current research to try to ascertain how the 1918 virus spread in the body, which might help in research to find better clinical treatment for avian viruses. The fact that Sir Mark had been buried at Sledmere in a sealed lead coffin raised the likelihood of better samples being found for the petitioner's research. The Chancellor granted a faculty. The prospect of finding a way of combatting the H5N1 virus would be of public benefit and was a sufficiently exceptional reason to displace the normal presumption against exhumation. 

A faculty was sought for the addition of a fully accessible lavatory, for a small kitchen facility and for roof repairs. The proposals were supported by the DAC, the planning authorities, the Victorian Society, the Church Buildings Council, English Heritage and the Ancient Monuments Society, but the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings was concerned at the cutting through of the fifteenth century west wall of the north aisle. It considered this intrusion into the fabric of the church to be unnecessary as a level external access was possible from the church to the lavatory. The Chancellor, after considering the questions in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, granted a Faculty for the works, including the internal access to the lavatory.