The petitioner wished to exhume from the churchyard the ashes of her father, who had died in 1991, and to reinter the ashes in Crowle Cemetery, where the ashes of the petitioner’s recently departed mother were to be interred. In 1991, Crowle Cemetery did not have an area set aside for cremated remains, but now there was such an area, and the family wished to ensure that the petitioner’s parents were buried together. The Chancellor was satisfied that exceptional reasons existed in this case for an exhumation to be permitted.

The Chancellor refused to allow a design of the Masonic square and compasses to be added to a memorial to the Petitioner's late husband, who had been a Freemason for forty years, latterly holding high office in Freemasonry.

During the parish priest's absence, whilst attending a course, a burial took place in the closed churchyard. Prior to his absence, the priest had told the funeral director and the family that a burial could not take place, unless in accordance with one of the exceptions in the Order in Council closing the churchyard for burials, namely: (1) where a grave had been reserved by faculty; (2) where a person could be buried in the same grave as a relative. (Also, cremated remains can be buried in a closed churchyard.) The funeral director arranged for the deceased to be buried next to the deceased's brother in a tight space between two graves. The Chancellor determined that the interment was unlawful, and could not be made lawful retrospectively by the Ministry of Justice or the court, but he decided that no action should be taken to disturb the burial or to refer the matter for police investigation.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the reservation of a double grave, as there were very few empty grave spaces left in the churchyard.

The churchwardens and incumbent (Petitioners) petitioned for a faculty to remove brick edging and loose stones next to a grave (Decoration). Mr Watt, the deceased’s father, opposed the petition, stating that the Decorations had remained since 2022 and numerous other graves similarly contravened the Regulations. The Chancellor held that introducing the Decorations was a trespass (as Mr Watt acknowledged authorisation was required), and their removal required a faculty (Re St Mary the Virgin, Burghfield). The Consistory Court should bear in mind the impact of a decision on all relevant parties (Re The Churchyard of Quarrington Hill). The Court considered that leaving matters unresolved is unfair to those complying and risks creating precedent. Accordingly, a faculty was granted for the removal of the Decorations by 2 February 2026 by either Mr Watt or the Petitioners, who will store the Decorations for two months for Mr Watt’s retrieval, and if not claimed, will be deemed abandoned. 

The petitioners wished to replace the existing 1980s upholstered chairs in the Grade II listed church with 150 new upholstered chairs, which were lighter in weight and would stack more easily. The Victorian Society objected to the proposal, citing the Church of England guidance that un-upholstered wooden chairs were more appropriate for historic church interiors. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty: the current chairs were difficult to move and were untidy, and the new chairs would not harm the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. 

A mother wished to have her son's body exhumed from the churchyard of St. Patrick Earlswood and reinterred in a churchyard in Ireland, where she now lived. Here reason for the request was that if her son;s body remained in England, she would have difficulty in visiting and tending the grave regularly. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. The petitioner had not shown any exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council wished to install solar panels on the roof of the unlisted Victorian church in order to reduce its energy bills. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied that "the visual impact of the solar panels will be relatively modest and can be accommodated without serious impact on the heritage value of the building", and he granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to redesign the north porch as the main entrance of the church and include the re-siting there of medieval statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, which had at various times been fixed at different positions both outside and inside the church. In 2015 the statues had been moved to a stonemason’s workshop as a place of safety, and we’re currently at a conservationist’s workshop. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings objected to the placing of the statues inside the north porch: they should be placed in the external niches above the (now redundant) south porch door, where they had once been fixed. The Chancellor determined that, for reasons of (inter alia) security, visibility and protection from weathering, the statues would be better placed in the refurbished south porch. The Chancellor granted a faculty for these and all the other proposed works.

The petitioner’s son committed suicide in 2013. The family had lived since 1971 at Blackmore in Essex. The petitioner’s son’s ashes were not buried in Blackmore, because it was alleged that the then incumbent would not conduct a funeral there. The Petitioner and her husband therefore arranged for their son’s ashes to be buried at Bentley Common, where other members of the family had been buried. After the death of her husband, whose ashes were buried at Blackmore, the petitioner wished to have her son’s ashes exhumed and buried in his father’s grave, where the petitioner also wished to have her own remains buried in due course. The Chancellor decided that there were special circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: the petitioner’s son had never lived at Bentley Common, nor indicated that he wished to be buried there; Blackmore was his home; reinterment at Blackmore would create a family grave; and at the time of the son’s death the situation at Blackmore had been far from ideal.