Mill Road Cemetery in Cambridge, which was closed in two stages in 1904 and 1949, and has since been maintained by Cambridge City Council (“CCC”), is owned by the incumbents of several parishes in the City of Cambridge. CCC applied for a general faculty to carry out further maintenance of the cemetery. The Chancellor considered that there was merit in reducing the need for the Consistory Court to be involved in the faculty process whenever works were needed outside those normally permitted without faculty. He therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioners applied for the temporary exhumation of the cremated remains of their brother from their father's grave, so that their mother could be buried in the same grave and the brother's cremated remains then returned to the grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner's daughter died, whilst still a child, in 2011. The petitioner and her husband had wanted a triple depth grave for their only child and themselves, but a triple depth grave was not possible because of the ground conditions The petitioner's husband died in 2020 and was buried in a grave about 400 yards away in the same cemetery. The petitioner now wished to have the remains of her daughter exhumed and reinterred in her husband's grave, next to which the petitioner had already reserved a grave for herself. The Chancellor decided that "exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation do exist in this case. The establishment of what is in effect a family grave will be expressive of family unity, which should be encouraged."

The petitioner's father died on 17 September 2020 and his remains were buried in a consecrated double depth grave in the cemetery, it being intended that in due time the petitioner's mother's remains should be buried in the same grave. The petitioner's mother died in September 2021 and shortly before that a very large memorial, which did not comply with the cemetery regulations, was erected on an adjacent plot. The family felt that the adjacent memorial was so large that it seriously overshadowed the grave of the petitioner's father. It was therefore decided to bury the petitioner's mother's remains in another double depth plot in the same cemetery and to seek permission to move the petitioner's father's remains to his wife's grave. The Chancellor considered that the family's concern was reasonable in the circumstances and, because the uncertainty as to whether or when the offending memorial could be modified or removed was likely to cause prolonged anxiety to the family, he decided to avoid any further distress by granting a faculty for exhumation and reinterment of the petitioner's father's remains.

The petitioner applied for a faculty for the exhumation of the remains of her mother, interred in Mortlake Cemetery in 1978, and for reinterment in a cemetery in the USA, near to where the petitioner lived. The Petitioner was the deceased's only surviving child and had lived in the USA since 1953. The Petitioner's children and their families all lived near to her  and an area in the cemetery near to her home had been reserved for the burial of members of her family, where one of her daughters was already buried. After considering the principles laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the Deputy Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances allowing her to grant a faculty for exhumation, so that all the members of the family could be buried together in the same cemetery.

The Vicar General refused to grant a confirmatory faculty for a memorial erected in memory of the petitioner's late wife, who had been a singer/songwriter and author of children's books. The memorial was made of wood and in the shape of a treble clef sign. The reasons given for refusal were: the memorial was taller and much thicker than the maximum dimensions laid down in the churchyards regulations; the wood was already cracking and deteriorating; the regulations required a memorial to be of natural stone; the memorial was of an eccentric shape, which is prohibited by the regulations; the Vicar General considered the memorial inappropriate for the setting. The Vicar General ordered the memorial to be removed within 56 days, and indicated that he would not object to it being replaced with a memorial of natural stone bearing a suitably sized engraving of a treble clef sign.

The petitioner’s parents both originated from Hong Kong, but had spent their married life in Newark. After the petitioner’s mother had died, her father moved back to Hong Kong. He died there and was buried in Tai Po in 2011, and it was said that his dying wish was for his wife’s remains to be exhumed and cremated and for the ashes to be interred in his gave in Tai Po. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. The petitioner’s mother’s remains had been buried for thirty years and exhumation would be likely to be difficult due to the effects of decay. Moreover, the normal presumption of permanence of burial applied, unless there were sufficient exceptional circumstance to justify exhumation. In this case there were no circumstances to merit exhumation. The family had fulfilled their duty to their father by making the petition, but for the reasons given the petition must be refused.

The Chancellor granted a faculty permitting the exhumation of Derek Harold Wilkinson’s cremated remains from Newbold Verdon Cemetery so that they could be reinterred with those of his late wife, Rosemary Wilkinson, in the same grave. Mr Wilkinson was buried in 2019 in his parents’ grave with his wife’s consent. After Mrs Wilkinson’s death in 2025, their son discovered a 2016 signed letter expressing his parents’ joint wish that their cremated remains be kept until they could be reunited and interred together in the cemetery’s Garden of Remembrance. The court accepted that Mrs Wilkinson’s early dementia at the time of her husband’s burial may explain why those wishes were not followed. Applying Re Blagdon Cemetery and related authority, the Chancellor held that the combination of the couple’s clear prior written wishes, Mrs Wilkinson’s cognitive decline, prompt action upon discovery of the letter, unanimous family support, and the limited disturbance involved constituted exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the presumption of permanence in Christian burial.

In January 1995 the cremated remains of Harold Bristeir were interred in plot 15000 in the cemetery. It was the intention at the time that when his wife Joan Bristier died, her remains would be interred in the same plot. In March 1995, Mrs. Bristeir's brothers, Michael and Roland Durber reserved rights of burial in the adjacent plot 14999. When Roland died in 2011, his remains were interred in plot 15000, owing to a mistake by the burial authority. This mistake came to light in 2017, when Mrs. Bristeir died, and the error was only discovered on the day before her funeral. In the circumstances, Mrs. Bristeir's daughter reluctantly agreed for her mother's ashes going in plot 14999. However, she later regretted that decision in haste and applied for the exhumation of her mother's ashes and Roland's ashes and their reinterment in the correct plots. The Chancellor found that, owing to the mistake by the burial authority, he was justified in allowing the two exhumations and reinterments.

A baby had died about an hour after its birth and the parents arranged for it to be buried in Northfleet Cemetery. They afterwards regretted their hasty decision to have the baby buried. The mother's mental health, supported by medical evidence, had suffered. She wished to have the body exhumed and cremated, with the intention of retaining the cremated remains at home until she had recovered from her grief. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions that the cremated remains should be interred in consecrated ground within 10 years, and until interment the cremated remains should be retained in a respectful and careful manner.