The petitioner applied for a confirmatory faculty for a replacement memorial on her parents' grave. The new memorial included the additional words, 'Honey I missed you', being a line from a song which the petitioner's father used to sing at his wife's grave. The Deputy Chancellor granting a faculty, taking the view that the inscription was "neither offensive nor incompatible with the Christian faith. No disrespect for that faith, the Church, or the churchyard as a place of rest and solace for many was intended. Rather, the inscription was chosen by the applicant as a fitting memorial to her parents."

The petitioners sought a faculty for extensive reordering at the Grade II listed church, including removal of choir stalls and pews, glazing of the west doors, handrails, relocation of the sound desk, levelling of the chancel with ramped access, carpeting, and a movable pulpit. The DAC supported the scheme; the Victorian Society maintained objections. Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor granted faculties for the glazed doors, handrails, sound desk, removal of the platform and communion rail, levelling of the chancel, and ramped access. He also permitted removal of five rear pews, subject to prior approval of replacement flooring. He refused faculties for removal of the choir stalls and relocation of the pulpit, finding inadequate evidence of their significance or justification for change. He held that removal of existing carpets would be unlikely to harm significance but found the petitioners had not given due regard to the CBC’s Historic Floors Guidance when proposing new and extended carpeting. He allowed resubmission of revised flooring proposals within six months, failing which that part of the petition would stand dismissed."

The petition proposed various items as the second phase of a reordering project. The main items were: the creation of a servery built on to the north wall at the west end of the church; removal of seven rows of pews at the west end of the church; and removal of two rows of pews at the front of the nave to allow an extension to the existing dais. The Victorian Society and Historic England had reservations about the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made an adequate case for the proposed works: " ... I find that the petitioners have proved to me to the necessary degree that the moderate harm that will be caused to the significance of this church as a building of special architectural or historic interest is justified by the need demonstrated."

In July 2013 the Chancellor granted of a faculty authorising works in respect of the stonework, stained glass, and wall paintings at the church. The Church Buildings Council had advised against the proposed work to the stained glass without a detailed conservation report. The faculty granted in July 2013 was subject to a condition that no work should be carried out to the stained glass unless and until a report was first prepared and approved by the Chancellor. A report had now been produced, in which the options given were to replace the broken pieces of glass with similar modern glass, or to insert strapping to support the original damaged glass. The Chancellor decided that the former option was appropriate. The window concerned was one of four matching windows, and new pieces of glass would retain an appearance similar to the other windows, whereas strapping would detract from the appearance of the window, especially as it was part of a set.

The Petitioners sought a faculty for repairs to the stone work,together with repairs to the stained glass and works of conservation in relation to the wall paintings. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals and the Victorian Society had no objection. The Church Buildings Council advised against the proposed work to the stained glass without a detailed conservation report. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to a condition that no work should be carried out to the stained glass (in a window damaged by missiles from outside) unless and until a report was first prepared and approved by the Chancellor.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a major reordering of the church, with the exception of a proposal to cover the whole of the floor with carpet, because he considered that, if the church was carpeted, "the change in the present character and nature of the church would be too great ".
(Note: This judgment also deals with a separate petition which included a proposal for carpeting, and is therefore separately listed as Re St. John the Divine Southbourne [1985] Quentin Edwards Ch. (Chichester).)

The petitioner wished to have her late husband buried in the grave of his first wife, which also contained the cremated remains of his first wife’s mother. In order for the burial to take place, it would be necessary for the cremated remains of the first wife’s mother to be temporarily exhumed and then returned to the same grave after the interment of the body of the petitioner’s husband. The Area Dean did not support the petition. He believed that exhumation would be contrary to the theological presumption of the permanence of Christian burial. The Chancellor, however, considered that there was case law which supported an exception to the normal presumption of permanence in these circumstances and he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the exhumation of the mortal remains of the baby son of one of the petitioners and reinterment in Ireland. The baby had lived less than three months. The family had lived in Ireland for 20 years and had a double grave plot reserved in their local churchyard, which could accommodate six burials. The father was suffering from terminal cancer and wished to be buried with his child in the family plot. For this and other reasons, the Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty.

In 2017, the then Archdeacon of Bath had granted a licence for temporary reordering which allowed the removal of the church pews into storage, the removal of five radiators and the laying of a temporary carpet. The pews were placed in a storage facility with pews removed from Bath Abbey. The licence was limited to a period of 18 months. For various reasons, including a vacancy in the benefice and the Covid pandemic, nothing had been done about the return of the pews. In the interim, Bath Abbey arranged for the disposal of its pews from the storage facility, and by mistake the pews from St. Michael’s church were included in the disposal. The petitioners now requested a confirmatory faculty for the permanent removal of the pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the permanent removal of the pews, but not for their disposal, which remained unlawful. A condition was attached to the faulty that the petitioners should use their best endeavours to try to recover a sample number of the missing pews.

The petitioners wished to remove three light, moveable, twentieth century pews from the Grade II* church, together with 20 chapel chairs, and replace them with up to 25 new chairs of a light-coloured wood with burgundy red upholstery on the seats and backs. Historic England cautioned against the use of upholstered replacement chairs due to their likely impact on the church’s interior, which is predominantly furnished in timber. The Victorian Society and the Georgian Society also objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the three pews and the chapel chairs and the introduction of up to 25 new wooden chairs, provided (inter alia) that: the the new wooden chairs should be stained to match the surrounding woodwork; only the seats should be upholstered; and the colour of the upholstery should be a neutral colour to blend in with the colour of the wood.