The petitioner wished to remove her father's cremated remains from Wymering's separate churchyard extension to a family plot in Waterlooville Cemetery, where the petitioners' mother wished to have her remains interred in due course. Other reasons given for the proposal were that the family had expected the ashes to be buried in the area set aside for cremated remains in the churchyard, but at the funeral they did not feel able to object to the grave having been dug in the extension. Also, the grave was in a position under what was now a large overgrowing tree. Whilst the location and condition of the plot would not in themselves be grounds to justify exhumation, the Chancellor did not think it would be a satisfactory solution to suggest that the petitioner's mother's ashes should be buried with her husband's ashes in the existing plot, or that the petitioner's mother's ashes should be buried separate from her husband's, in view of the distress which that would cause to the family. He therefore granted a faculty for the exhumation and reinterment as requested.

The petitioner’s son had died in 2022 and his body had been buried in the churchyard at Stambourne. Her son’s family had since moved away from Stambourne and it was not known where they now lived. The petitioner wished to have her son’s remains exhumed and reinterred in consecrated ground in Northwood Cemetery, Middlesex, near where the petitioner and other members of the family lived. The petitioner claimed that a mistake had been made because the decision was made to inter the deceased in Stambourne because it was expected that his wife and children would be staying in the village, otherwise the deceased would have been buried at Northwood, near his family home. Also, travelling to visit her son’s grave had caused the petitioner to suffer from depression. The Chancellor determined that there were insufficient exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation and she therefore refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioners wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of their son. Two parishioners objected: one, on the grounds that the churchyards regulations did not allow a grave reservation; and the other, on the grounds that the reservation would create a gap in a row of graves. The Chancellor granted a faculty. The first objector had misunderstood the purpose of the churchyard regulations, which did not prohibit a grave reservation, and, as regards the second objection, there would be only a modest effect on the appearance of the churchyard. The petitioners (who were in their 60s) were parishioners and entitled to be buried in the churchyard; there was sufficient room for burials for approximately thirty years; and there was a good reason for the petitioners wishing to be buried next to their son.

The petitioner, a churchwarden, sought a confirmatory faculty for  the installation on the church tower of radio internet repeater equipment to provide internet access within the Church without the need for the installation of a telephone line. A neighbour had initially been concerned about the impact of the equipment on the health of himself and his family and he also raised concerns about safe access for maintenance of the equipment.  However, the Chancellor was satisfied that the neighbour's concerns had been largely assuaged and that the impact of the installed equipment upon the historical significance of the listed Church building would be negligible. He therefore granted a confirmatory faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for himself and his wife. They lived in the parish and had relatives buried in the churchyard, including their daughter, who had died in a road traffic accident at the age of 26. The Parochial Church Council did not support the application, as it had exercised a policy for some time of not supporting grave reservations. It was estimated that the churchyard would be full in 18 years' time. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

The petitioners sought exhumation of the cremated remains of a relative and reinterment at a higher elevation in the same churchyard, as the area for cremated remains had become waterlogged and difficult to access. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty.

The parish sought permission for the removal of most of the remaining pews, in order to create more flexible and informal spaces for family, musical and other activities. The Victorian Society questioned the need to remove the pews. A private individual objected on grounds of insufficient consultation; a reduction in seating capacity; cost; and whether there was a need for the pews to be removed. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case and he granted a faculty. Any replacement seating would have to be approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

The petitioners sought a confirmatory faculty for works carried out some years before, including two areas of temporary reordering at the east end of the nave and the east end of the south aisle, the introduction of a grand piano, the removal of pews at the west end of the north aisle to allow for the introduction of a timber carving of the nativity by Graham Clarke and the making permanent of an audio visual installation. The Commissary General granted a faculty, subject to a condition, inter alia, that the petitioners should discuss with the Diocesan Advisory Committee ways of mitigating the visually intrusive reflective aspect of the audio-visual screens.

After the death of Mr. John Parnaby, his mother commissioned a memorial and was reimbursed the cost from Mr. Parnaby's estate. The petitioner was Mr. Parnaby's partner and had lived with him for 25 years. She was upset that her connection to Mr. Parnaby was not mentioned in the inscription on the stone and petitioned for permission to amend the inscription to refer to their relationship, but without any consultation with the Parnaby family, owing to a rift. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, on the basis that, as stated by the Chancellor in the judgment in Re St. Giles Sheldon [2022] ECC Bir 1, " ... the Anglican teaching concerning graves is that they should not be a focus for discord and should not be disturbed unless there is clear reason that should happen".

The petitioner sought a faculty giving her the right to be buried in the same grave as her late partner. There had been a rift in the past between the petitioner and the deceased's mother. (See Re St. Peter Bourton-on-Dunsmore [2022] ECC Cov 6, where the same petitioner sought to have reference to herself added to her partner's memorial (commissioned by his mother), but her application was refused.) In the present case, the deceased's mother did not object to the petitioner having the right to be buried in the same grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.