Faculty granted for the exhumation of cremated remains and their reinterment in a family grave in the nearby cemetery, even though the remains had not been interred in a casket, but poured into a hole in the ground.

The person whose cremated remains were the subject of the petition had lived in London and had died suddenly at the age of 56. His family had been persuaded by a close friend of the deceased, who lived next to the churchyard in Uggeshall in Suffolk, to have the deceased ashes interred in the churchyard there. The family subsequently fell out with the friend after, as they alleged, he caused a motor accident, as a result of which one family member was admitted to hospital and another was treated for shock. The friend never acknowledged responsibility for the accident. The family then felt it difficult to visit the grave overlooked by the former friend’s house. They therefore wished to have the cremated remains exhumed and reburied in London, giving as their reasons the rift, the desire to create a family grave and the difficulty in visiting Uggeshall for the surviving family. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, as he considered that none of these reasons were sufficiently exceptional to justify exhumation.

In 2016 the Chancellor of the Diocese of Chester granted a faculty for the proposed new church centre. An application was subsequently made by the objectors to the Chancery Court of York for leave to appeal. By an Order dated 20 December 2016, the Auditor of the Chancery Court gave leave to appeal on only one of the grounds put forward by the objectors. The appeal to the Chancery Court of York was later withdrawn as the result of a Consent Order.

In 2015 a petition was presented in the Diocese of Chester, seeking permission to construct a new church centre at Upton St. Mary at a cost of £1.6m. This would involve the demolition of an adjacent hall. There were objections. On 30 November 2015 the Chancellor gave an interim judgment dealing with the question of whether the adjacent building was within the curtilage of the church. The Chancellor concluded that it was, and so it was within his jurisdiction. For the chancellor's full judgment, see Re St. Mary Upton [2016] ECC Chr 3.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the proposed new church centre. Following the judgment an application was made by the objectors to the Chancery Court of York for leave to appeal. By an Order dated 20 December 2016, the Auditor of the Chancery Court gave leave to appeal on only one of the grounds put forward by the objectors. The appeal to the Chancery Court of York was subsequently withdrawn as the result of a Consent Order. See Re St. Mary Upton (or Overchurch) (Order) [2016] ECCY 1.

Review of original judgment following objections of Parish Council (after the grant of a Faculty) to the removal of pews and replacement with chairs. Faculty confirmed.

The petition proposed a major reordering, including the removal of pews from the nave and their replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; alteration of choir pews and other reordering of the chancel; installation of underfloor heating; extensive re-flooring; removal of walls at the west end of the church and installation of glass screens and doors. The Victorian Society was a party opponent. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, concluding that this was an exceptional case where extensive reordering was necessary to meet the needs of the church and the local community.

Faculty granted by the Chancellor, authorising the removal of kerb stones from the churchyard, being satisfied that the proposal had been sufficiently publicised and no memorial owner had expressed objection to the works being carried out.

The petitioners wished to install two new gas-fired central heating boilers in the link structure between the church and the new vestry, to replace a single 17 year old gas-fired boiler installed in the same link structure and a 25 year old oil-fired boiler installed in a Victorian boiler-house 20 metres from the church. There was one written objection that the proposed installation would take up valuable storage space. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner sought a confirmatory faculty to permit the retention of some kerbs and slate chippings which were introduced at the grave of his late father without the prior authority of a faculty. The petitioner later gave notice that he wished to withdraw his petition. In his judgment, the Chancellor granted leave to withdraw the petition and stated that, as a consequence, a retrospective faculty could not be granted; the kerbs and chippings should be removed to a secure place and, if the kerbs and chippings were not removed by the petitioner within 6 weeks, the churchwardens could remove them and dispose of them as they wished.