The petitioners sought to remove the font from the west end of the church to the chancel and to remove one pew from the west end of the church. The judgment contains a discussion of liturgical tradition and the provisions of Canon Law regarding the siting of a font. Faculty granted.

The petition proposed a reordering of the chancel, to include extending the chancel floor level a short distance into the nave and to provide new altar rails. The Victorian Society objected to the proposed removal of the pulpit and the removal of the iron railings and alabaster-faced walls which separated the chancel from the nave. The Chancellor concluded that the removal of the features concerned would cause moderate harm to the significance of the building as a place of historical interest, but that the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of providing a more open, unimpeded and flexible space to meet the worship, mission and community needs of the parish.

The vicar and churchwardens of a Grade I listed church sought a faculty for the installation of a stained glass window in memory of the wife of a canon who had served in the parish in his retirement. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He held that, as a stained glass window adorned or beautified a church, and comprised part of its fabric, it was not a memorial in the normal sense of the word, and that the test of exceptionality relating to the character or service of the person to be commemorated (which would apply in connection with the introduction of a memorial) was not appropriate.

The petition proposed the following items of reordering in the church: removal of pews from the aisles and replacement of the pew platforms with flagstones; new heating system; renewal of the electrics; installation of new WCs; a new clergy vestry; a space for meetings and workshops; and an area for refreshments (later to become a full kitchen). The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society had reservations about the proposals, the latter being particularly concerned about the removal of Victorian tiles from the aisles. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that there was a clear justification for the proposals and that any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be substantial.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed, to include: re-roofing and stonework repairs; new drains and soakaways; repair and realignment of pews; conservation of paintings and monuments; new lighting; removal of some pews; and relocation of the boiler to the churchyard, to create a vestry. The Church Buildings Council had a number of serious reservations about the proposals, which were rebutted by the petitioners. The Chancellor rejected the Council's concerns and granted a faculty.

The Rector and Churchwardens of St Mary Magdalene Adlestrop petitioned to install a hatchment in the Church in memory of the late Mrs. Collins of Adlestrop Park. The Chancellor granted a faculty. The judgment contains a discussion of the nature of hatchments and their placement in church buildings.

The petition proposed an extensive program of reordering. The Victorian Society became a party to the proceedings, opposed to the proposals for upholstered chairs and carpet in the nave. The Chancellor granted a Faculty. He was not prusaded by the argument of the Victorian Society that persuaded that carpet in the Grade II building would cause the damaging ‘domestication’ of the interior. With regard to the upholstered chairs, he concluded that 'the choice of chair will inflict some modest harm on the visual aesthetics of the building, but ... this parish has demonstrated a benefit which will outweigh the harm.'

The petitioner, who did not live in the parish and therefore had no legal right to be buried in it, wished to reserve a double depth grave in the churchyard for himself and his wife, next to the grave of their son, who had died in a tragic accident at the age of 24. The associate priest objected (without becoming a party opponent) on the grounds that spaces for burial were limited and since 2021 the parish had had a policy of not approving further grave reservations, as the churchyard was likely to be full within about six years. In the circumstances, the Chancellor felt it would be unfair to override the parish policy and refused to grant a faculty.

This was a determination of two petitions relating to: a new boiler and changes to the heating system; new lighting and power systems; redecoration; reordering of the chancel; changes to the south door; and disposal of chancel furniture. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that "and the harm to the significance of the building caused by removal of furniture and fittings is outweighed by the liturgical freedom created, and the public benefit to be gained by having a flexible area to utilise for worship and other diverse activities".

There was a proposal to remove the pews from the side aisles, with a view to replacing them in due course with new seats. In the meantime there were some plastic seats in the church, which could be placed in the side aisles when a large congregation was expected. The Chancellor was concerned that no detailed proposals had been presented in respect of replacement chairs. He granted a faculty for the removal of the side aisle pews, subject to conditions that the existing plastic chairs should not be left in the side aisles when not needed, and that the petitioners should by the end of 2019 put forward detailed proposals for replacement chairs.