A memorial comprising a headstone and a ledger stone had been installed in the churchyard without the prior knowledge of the Team Rector, following the interment of a fourth member of the family in the same grave. The family was advised that the Team Rector could not have approved the memorial anyway, as features of the memorial were outside the churchyards regulations. The family applied for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor directed that a photograph on the headstone and two emblems of Liverpool Football Club should be removed. Whilst not happy about the nature and extent of the inscriptions, the Chancellor otherwise granted a faculty. He considered that the stonemason had been remiss in not advising the family that they should have applied for a faculty for a memorial outside the regulations and should therefore meet the cost of removal of the photograph and the football club emblems.

The petitioners wished to introduce sixteen upholstered Alpha A1LE chairs together with four dining tables into the north aisle of the church, from which the pews had been removed in 1997. The vicarage had recently been sold, resulting in the loss of a room for church meetings. The tables and chairs would be used for refreshments and fellowship after church services and for meetings of the Parochial Church Council. Although satisfied that a case was made for tables and chairs, the Chancellor was concerned that the particular chairs chosen would "have a real impact on the appearance and special significance of this grade II* church. They will strike a discordant note and will detract from the overall character of the interior." He therefore refused to grant a faculty, but invited the petitioners to consider alternative chairs in consultation with the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

The Priest in Charge and the churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to remove the existing Victorian storm porch and to replace it with a porch consisting of glass doors in a timber frame. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and English Heritage supported the proposals. The Victorian Society felt that the new doors would be too reflective. The architect explained that the doors would be set back and would therefore not have the reflective appearance the Victorian Society feared. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner had discovered that the memorial to her husband had not been laid directly over the casket containing his ashes, when she had previously been assured by a churchwarden this that was not the case. (She in fact had taken it upon herself without faculty to move the casket under the memorial.) The petitioner felt that she had been deliberately misled, and she wished to have her husband's ashes exhumed and reinterred in a local cemetery. This had given rise to a breakdown in relationships between the petitioner and the vicar and churchwardens. The petitioner claimed that every time she visited her husband's grave she felt anger and grievance towards the vicar and churchwardens. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment: "The fact that the widow or widower of a person whose remains have been interred in a particular churchyard has strong feelings of anger and grievance towards the incumbent and churchwardens of the particular church cannot justify the exhumation of the remains in question."

The Chancellor granted a faculty the authorise the introduction of 8-10 sheep into one of the three churchyards of the parish, for the purpose of keeping down the vegetation.

The Parochial Church Council (PCC) proposed adding a new porch with glazed doors to provide easier access, a more welcoming entrance, and to minimise draughts. The PCC amended its original design after comments from the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the unlisted church.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the erection a pre-fabricated timber framed building in the community garden at the side of the church. The building would be supported on concrete blocks and would therefore require the provision of a temporary ramp to allow access for the disabled. The judgment contains a discussion on the need for compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

During the course of a major redevelopment (authorised by Faculty) requiring the reordering of the interior of the church to add offices, with a kitchen and lavatories, all to be accessible to the disabled, human remains were discovered during the digging of a trench in the churchyard. Shortly afterwards, some human remains were uncovered inside the church. It being impossible to reinter remains in the closed churchyard, the Chancellor directed that all the remains be stored within the church until such convenient time as all the remains could be reinterred inside the church in the same area where the second set of human remains had been uncovered.

A major reordering was proposed. The Victorian Society objected to the central pews in the nave being made moveable and to the proposal to replace the aisle pews with upholstered chairs. The Society also argued that some of the pew doors, removed at some time within the past 50 years without authority, should be reinstated. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for making the nave pews moveable, but made it a condition of the faculty that doors should be replaced on three rows of pews. He also approved the proposed replacement of the aisle pews with upholstered chairs, as well as the other items of reordering.

The Chancellor considered four applications for faculties to reserve graves in the churchyard. The Chancellor was concerned that there were very few grave spaces left unoccupied, and that the Parochial Church Council had already applied for closure of the churchyard in six months time, which he considered premature. After discussing the approach of other Chancellors to applications for the reservation of graves, the Chancellor decided to grant reservations in two of the present applications, where the applicants were in their 60s and 70s, they were longstanding residents, and they had strong connections with the church. But he refused the other two applications, where the applicants were in their 30s and 40s, did not live in the parish and had little connection with the church. The Chancellor did not consider that having a relative buried in the churchyard was of itself a sufficient reason to grant a faculty to reserve a grave.