The petitioners' parents had intended to be buried in the same grave. The Petitioners' mother died in 2008 and was buried in the chosen grave. When the petitioners' father died in 2019, it was discovered a few days before the funeral that the grave of their mother had not been dug sufficiently deep to accommodate a second burial, and so, as a 'temporary measure', the father was buried in another part of the churchyard. The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of their mother's body, so that the grave could be dug deeper to accommodate the burial of their father's body. The Chancellor accepted that a mistake had been made in that the instructions to dig a double depth grave in 2008 had not been followed, and he granted a faculty for the double exhumation and reinterment, conditional upon it being possible to dig the mother's grave deeper, failing which the mother's remains could be exhumed and reinterred in her husband's grave.

A couple had planned to be buried in a double grave. The husband died in 2006 and was duly buried in the grave. His wife died in 2020, but a trial dig two weeks before the planned funeral date made it clear that the husband's coffin had not been buried sufficiently deep to allow the burial of a second coffin with enough earth above it. The undertakers therefore applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the husband's coffin, to enable the grave to be dug deeper, in order to accommodate both coffins at sufficient depth. The Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the granting of a faculty, due to a mistake by the undertakers when the grave was originally dug in 2006.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for exhumation, finding that there were sufficient special circumstances to justify him doing so. The undertakers had failed to ensure that the grave digger had dug the grave sufficiently deep. In consequence of this failure, the coffin had become exposed to the surface at one end, where the ground had sunk. Additionally, the ground anchors supporting the headstone had pierced the top corner of the coffin and the coffin lid was broken or had rotted since burial. The Chancellor directed that the cost of the exhumation, including the faculty fees, should rest with the undertakers.

The Dean of Arches gave leave to appeal on only two of five grounds set out in the application. He also gave directions as to costs. (The petition contained proposals for reordering works in the church. See Re St. John Waterloo [2017] ECC Swk 1)

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for reordering proposals within the early 19th century Grade II* church. The church had been bombed during the Second World War, and had been restored in time for the opening of the nearby Festival of Britain Exhibition of 1951, according to designs of the architect Thomas Ford. The Chancellor conluded that there was no sufficiently clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals which would outweigh the potential harm to the 1951 interior scheme.

A major reordering scheme was proposed for the church. The Twentieth Century Society, though not a party opponent, objected that the proposed scheme would affect the integrity of the original design of the church by the Georgian architect Thomas Ford. The Chancellor took the view that the proposed scheme would have a significant effect on the interior of the church, but he was satisfied that the benefits would outweigh any harm. He accordingly granted a faculty.

Petition for Faculty to authorise a memorial comprising a headstone and kerb stones. Headstone authorised, but not the kerb stones.

The petitioner wished to have the remains of her late father-in-law temporarily exhumed for DNA analysis. She claimed that in 2018 her husband had been wrongly convicted of two rapes in 1983 and 1988. The petitioner's sister-in-law did not believe that her brother had committed the offences of which he had been convicted, but that her father might well have been the perpetrator. The Chancellor considered that the petitioner had made out a case for the temporary disinterment of the remains and sampling of bone fragments for DNA analysis, to establish whether there was a possibility of a miscarriage of justice. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petition related to the disposal of an upright piano, which was beyond repair and the installation of a grand piano, which was a gift from a local arts charity. The installation of the grand piano had already been authorised by an Archdeacon's temporary licence and the petition sought approval for the installation to remain permanent. There were two objectors, who did not become parties opponent. The Diocesan Advisory Committee approved the proposals and all but one member of the Parochial Church Council (one of the objectors) voted in favour. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council wished to fell and grind out the roots of a holly tree and to repair a collapsed section of the churchyard wall. A parishioner objected that the removal of the tree was unnecessary; that judicious pruning would allow the wall to be rebuilt; and that the cost was excessive. The proposal was recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, a tree specialist and the church's inspecting architect. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the removal of the tree and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition for a replacement planting in the churchyard.