The Chancellor refused to grant faculties for the reservation of two separate grave spaces in the churchyard, notwithstanding that the applicants had connections with the church. The churchyard was likely to be full within 5 years. The Chancellor said that the remaining spaces must be filled by the burial of individuals with a right of burial or a strong connection with the church in the order in which they die, until such time as the churchyard becomes full.

The petitioner wished to place a memorial on the grave of his late wife. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve of the design, a bronze plaque on a rough-hewn, wedge-shaped, local stone, as not befitting the setting. It also considered the inscription (which included a verse by Byron) too lengthy and over-personal. The Chancellor saw no reason to disallow the design of the memorial, but was concerned about the inscription. He determined to grant a faculty, subject to the Petitioner agreeing a suggested alternative inscription set out in the judgment, omitting the proposed verse or including an alternative verse from Holy Scripture or classical Christian poetry or hymnody.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought a confirmatory faculty for replacement of the nave and chancel ceilings and partial redecoration of the interior of the church, including the reredos panels. The plaster used included synthetic fibres, rather than traditional horse hair, and a modern paint had been used instead of limewash. The Commissary General considered that there was some minor harm to the significance of the Grade II* building, but accepted the expert evidence that it would do more harm than good, in physical terms, to strip out the work and start again. She accordingly granted a confirmatory faculty, subject to a condition that the work done should be monitored and reported on annually by the church architect for a period of ten years.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to authorise the temporary removal from the vault beneath the Sheldon Chapel of a skull, possibly that of William Shakespeare, to enable the carrying out of a detailed archaeological investigation to include laser scanning, radio carbon dating, and an anthropological assessment. The Chancellor found no scholarly or other evidence to support the story that the skull was that of William Shakespeare.

When the petitioner was 16 years old, her mother had died. Five years later she wished to install a memorial over her mother's grave. She approached a local stonemason, chose a design, and the stone was erected at the grave. The petitioner had been unaware that permission was needed to erect the memorial, and the mason did not check that permission had been obtained before erecting the memorial. The memorial was an oval shaped grey slate stone on a rectangular base with an incised trough planter. At one side of the base was an image of a bumble bee and on the other side a Celtic cross. There were objections to the stone. The petitioner applied for a faculty to retain the stone. The two churchwardens became parties opponent. After considering the approaches of other Chancellors in a number of other judgments, the Chancellor decided not to grant a faculty and that the stone should be removed. He indicated that if the petitioner chose a stone within the churchyards regulations, he would permit the designs of the bumble bee and Celtic cross and the same inscription, subject to part of the inscription being in quotation marks (for reasons which will be apparent from the judgment).

The Petitioners sought to reserve a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of their daughter. The priest in charge and churchwardens became parties opponent, objecting to the reservation on the grounds that the PCC had for many years had a policy of resisting the reservation of gravespaces and of operating a “first come first served” approach, which many parishioners had followed. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty on the basis that, where there was a long-standing PCC policy in place, he should not override that policy unless there was an exceptional reason for doing so. To grant a faculty in this case "would be to create the risk of real injustice to others who in circumstances of loss have themselves accepted the existing policy".

The petition contained proposals for extensive reordering works at the Grade II* listed medieval church, including underfloor heating, a new stone floor, kitchen and lavatory facilities, removal of most pews, new screens and storage, roof insulation, lighting upgrades, external plant and storage buildings, lowering of the pulpit, relocation of the font and ledger stones and replacement of the organ. Amenity bodies raised significant objections, particularly about underfloor heating, relocation of historic features, removal of seating, the scale and impact of external building, and potential harm to the church’s historic and rural character. The PCC revised aspects of the scheme and demonstrated strong community support and anticipated demand, especially in light of local housing growth. The DAC supported the proposals and commended the PCC’s consultation process. Following a site visit, the Chancellor applied the Duffield test and concluded that, overall, the benefits for mission and community use outweighed the heritage harm. A faculty was granted for all the items, with the exception of the proposed lowering of the pulpit.

An application had been made by a private individual for a restitution order against the Archdeacon, requiring him to replace the pews which had been removed from the church in the summer of 2020, on the grounds that their removal was not permitted by a licence for temporary minor reordering, and was therefore unlawful. The Archdeacon had not actually given permission for the pews to be removed. They had been removed by the Churchwardens and Parochial Church Council (PCC), who subsequently undertook to return the pews to the church in October 2021, but did not do so until December 2021. The Commissary General gave directions for the Archdeacon to be removed as the respondent and replaced by the Churchwardens and PCC. The Commissary General also considered it appropriate, in the interests of certainty, to issue a restitution order, and he directed that the new respondents should pay the costs of the application and of the hearing.

In Re St. Leonard Hythe [2023] ECC Can 2, the petitioner had applied for a restoration order in respect of an altar which had been moved to the head of the nave, on the basis that no lawful authority had been granted for such use. The Commissary General had dismissed the petitioner's application. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal. The Dean of the Arches refused to grant leave to appeal. The main ground of appeal was that it was unlawful to move an altar in a church without the authority of a faculty. The Dean referred to Canon F2, which states that, if there is any dispute as to where an altar is to be positioned, it should be determined by the Ordinary. In relation to another ground of appeal, that the altar had been installed without authority, the Dean pointed out that, as the altar had been installed more than six years ago, the court had no jurisdiction to make a restoration order (Section 72, Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018).

The petitioner applied for a restoration order in respect of a portable altar which had been used on the chancel steps at the head of the nave, on the basis that no lawful authority had been granted for such use. Shortly after the application, the newly arrived priest-in-charge approached the archdeacon, seeking a Temporary Minor Reordering Licence, to allow the altar to be used occasionally for a trial period, after which the Parochial Church Council could decide whether it wished to apply for a faculty to make the arrangement permanent. The archdeacon granted a licence. The petitioner claimed that the granting of the licence was an 'abuse' of legal process to defeat his application. The Commissary General disagreed and dismissed the petitioner's application. If the church council applied for a faculty to make the arrangement permanent, the petitioner would then have an opportunity to object.