The following works of reordering were proposed: disposal of unwanted furniture; installation of an aumbry, with a lamp; and installation of a nave altar. There was one objector (who did not become a party opponent), whose main objection was to the introduction of the aumbry. The Chancellor determined that the objector's arguments on procedural or doctrinal grounds were wrong and he therefore granted a faculty.

The rector and churchwardens wished to remove to the diocesan furnishing store or to dispose of by sale the ebonised wooden altar cross (date of installation unknown) on the dossal shelf of the reredos, as the cross partly obscured the Agnus Dei design of the reredos by George Gilbert Scott. Letters of objection were received from several parishioners. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a case for their proposal, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise works which included the removal and storage of one pair of wooden doors; the reduction in size of the disabled lavatory cubicle, so as to provide more space in the adjacent room which is used as a creche; the introduction of worktops; associated electrical and drainage works; and relocation of a Belfast sink to the north porch. There were 16 letters of objection, but no parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that, although the guidelines set out in the judgment in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] did not engage in the case of this unlisted Victorian church, the petitioners had made out a good case for the proposed works, and he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor considered six faculty petitions relating to telecoms equipment for six churches in London: St. Mary Cable Street, St. George-in-the-East, Christ Church Staines, St. Stephen Hounslow, St. Andrew Uxbridge and All Saints Ealing. In 2011 the Chancellor had issued a practice direction regarding the installations of telecoms equipment, in light of which he was concerned at teh way teh proposals had been negotiated. The Chancellor granted faculties, but wished to express in judgment form his misgivings about the process of negotiations.

The Chancellor refused to permit a memorial bearing the masonic symbol of a square and compasses, because he considered that "wording or symbols which give rise to a real risk of offence or upset to a significant body of those visiting the churchyard will not be permitted."

The petitioners' father died in 1993. His body was cremated and his ashes were interred in the churchyard. The petitioners' mother died in 2021. The petitioners wished to fulfil their mother's request before her death that, regretting that she had had her husband's ashes interred in the churchyard, she wished her husband's ashes to be exhumed following her death and scattered with her own ashes in a favourite place. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. There were no sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify an exhumation, particularly after such a long lapse of time between the two deaths.

The petitioner applied for permission to install in the churchyard a memorial to her paternal grandparents. The design of the proposed memorial was an open book and the proposed type of stone was polished black granite. The design also included a poppy. Three members of the family objected on the grounds that the inscription was to include the names of certain members of the family, but not others. The Chancellor was concerned about the proposed inscription being “crowded with engraved sentiments” and also the inappropriateness of some of the wording, but decided to leave it to the incumbent and the family to agree any amendments. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to conditions that (a) the names of all the deceased’s children and grandchildren should be mentioned in the inscription or none and (b) the poppy design to be engraved into the memorial should be limited to an outline in the same colour as the rest of the engravings.

The petitioners’ baby boy had died less than an hour after being born and his remains had been buried in the churchyard. The Petitioners wished to introduce a memorial of black granite (which complied with the diocesan churchyard rules) and kerbs, with a number of sentiments inscribed on the memorial. The Chancellor approved the words and she also approved the kerbs, as kerbs were quite prevalent in the churchyard. The Chancellor also permitted two etched images, one of a baby giraffe toy and the other of a knitted heart presented to the petitioners by the hospital. The petitioners wished the etchings and wording on the memorial to be coloured blue. Without wishing to set a precedent, the Chancellor decided, exceptionally, to allow the colour blue, given that in this case the memorial was for a baby boy.

The church is situated in an area which floods regularly. In 2014, severe flooding had damaged the wood block flooring of the Grade I listed church. It was proposed to replace the wood block flooring with stone laid over insulation and with underfloor heating. The architects on the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not favour the type of insulation ("Celotex") proposed by the church architect. After considering the advice of the architects and advice from a Chartered Civil Engineer, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the works as proposed by the church architect.

The petitioners wished to install two closed circuit television ("CCTV") cameras in the church and a recorder in the vestry, to enable the church to be left open during the day. The Commissary General granted a faculty (subject to conditions) and set out in her judgment the principles and guidelines to be followed in respect of future applications for the installation of CCTV equipment.