The incumbent refused to approve the use of the words "Dad" and "Grandad" in the inscription for a  memorial, the reason given being that the parochial church councils of the benefice had agreed, in a written policy, that (inter alia) only the words "Father" and "Grandfather" should be used on memorials. The Chancellor could find no real justification for this policy and granted a faculty to authorise the use of the words "Dad" and "Grandad", which she did not find objectionable. (Although not a reason for the decision, it is noted in the judgment that 15 inscriptions on memorials in the churchyard used the words “Dad” or “Grandad” and there were 12 examples which showed use of female equivalents, such as “Mum” or “Nan”.)

The petitioner wished to reserve a double grave for herself and her partner. The petitioner had been resident in the parish until 2013, the remains of her father and stillborn child were buried in the churchyard, and all her immediate family still lived in the area. The normal period allowed for reservation of a grave in the diocese was 25 years. Evidence suggested that there was room for further burials only for a further 7 to 10 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited it to 10 years, giving permission to the petitioner to apply for an extension within 6 months of the expiry of the 10 years. The judgment contains a review of decisions relating to grave reservations by other Chancellors, including cases where Parochial Church Councils had adopted policies of not supporting grave reservations.

A faculty was granted to permit the replacement of stolen lead roofing with a non-metal roofing material known as Ubiflex. The faculty was limited to a period of five years.

The petitioners wished to place in the churchyard a bench made of steel with slats made from recycled plastic. The Diocesan Advisory Committee ('DAC') did not recommend the proposal. They considered the design not suitable for a historic village churchyard, but more appropriate for a school or city centre, and that a timber bench would be more appropriate. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He did not think it appropriate or necessary to overrule the choice of the Parochial Church Council ('PCC') on grounds of aesthetics. However, he imposed a condition that the PCC should reconsider the design and materials of the bench. If they decided on an alternative, then the alternative would be allowed, subject to prior approval by the DAC. Otherwise, the design accompanying the petition was approved.

The cremated remains of two parishioners had been interred in a double depth grave plot in the churchyard in February 2024. In July 2024, the cremated remains of another parishioner were interred. It was later discovered that the second interment was so close to the first that there was insufficient space between them to fit a standard-size ledger stone over the top of each buried casket. This situation caused distress to both families. The Team Vicar applied for a faculty for the exhumation of the second casket and for it to be reinterred in another place in the churchyard. The Chancellor was satisfied that the mistake as to proximity of the second interment to the first was an exceptional circumstance which justified the grant of a faculty.

The petition proposed a churchyard memorial in the form of a wheeled cross on an open plinth and solid base. Whilst the design was outside the churchyards regulations, the Chancellor determined that the design was both both attractive and appropriate for a churchyard setting, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to authorise the installation of a kitchen and servery unit in the north aisle of the church and two toilets on the ground floor of the tower, with a new meeting room and gallery above. The works would involve moving the tower screen forward a short distance. One parishioner objected, being concerned that the relocation of the screen and the construction of the balcony would have an adverse impact on the west window. She also was concerned about the loss of the 19th century doors from the screen. The Victorian Society had expressed similar reservations. The Chancellor granted a faculty: although the works would involve some harm to the fabric, and the lowest part of the west window would be obscured, such harm, though regrettable, was outweighed by the practical need for modern facilities within the building.

The petitioners (the Rector, a Churchwarden and the PCC Secretary) sought a faculty to authorise the removal of three pews from the east end of the nave, two on the south side and one on the north side, in order to provide space for those with wheelchairs, for instrumentalists and singers, for a projector and screen on the south side. and to give more space for those attending wedding couples. The Chancellor determined that the modest harm to the character of the church would be outweighed by the clear and significant public benefit flowing from the proposal.

The Parochial Church Council petitioned for permission to remove all toys, ornaments and other memorabilia and edgings from 67 graves within the churchyard, many of which items had been in the churchyard for a considerable time. The Chancellor considered all written objections, including a claim that to remove such items would be in breach of the law relating to human rights, but decided that the PCC was entirely within its rights in wishing to enforce the Churchyard Regulations, and accordingly a faculty was granted.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Peterborough, who had refused to grant a faculty for the sale of certain items of church silver. The reason for the proposed sale of the "redundant" silver had been to start a fund to meet the cost of building an extension to the church. The Court of Arches dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Chancellor in his judgment: the application to sell the silver was premature; there was no immediate financial crisis; planning permission had not yet been obtained (in fact planning permission had been refused two years earlier and no appeal had been made against the decision); there had not yet been any appeal for funds, and so one could not argue that the proceeds of a sale of the silver were vital to the completion of the project.