The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the exhumation of cremated remains, so that they could be reinterred in the same grave at a greater depth, in order to allow the interment above them of the cremated remains of another member of the family.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for an exhumation and reinterment in circumstances where, owing to an administrative error, a deceased's remains had been buried in the wrong grave.

The petitioner's brother had died, aged 5, in 1970 and his remains were interred in a consecrated part of Streatham Park Cemetery. It had been the hope of the petitioner's parents that they would be able to be buried next to their son. The petitioner's mother having recently died, it was discovered that the she could not be buried next to her son. The petitioner therefore sought a faculty to have her brother's remains exhumed and the grave dug deeper to allow the reinterment of her brother's remains, the interment of her mother and, in due time the interment of her father. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: "... family graves are intrinsically a good thing, as expressive of family unity and making economical use of grave space. The creation of a family grave formed part of the exceptional circumstances arising in Blagdon." [Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 291 (Court of Arches)]

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his late wife from Sutton Cemetery and reinter them at the North East Surrey Crematorium in Morden. He had agreed to his wife's ashes being interred at Sutton in the grave of his wife's mother and grandmother. The Petitioner expected that he too could have his ashes buried with those of his wife in due course. However, owing to a rift between the petitioner and his wife's sisters, the sisters would not agree to the petitioner's ashes being buried with those of his wife. The Chancellor decided that this was an exceptional case where he could grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment, so that the petitioner's ashes could be buried in the same grave as the ashes of his wife in due time.

The proposal was to construct limed oak seating around the semi-circle of the apse of the Lady Chapel, terminating in a credence table at the southern end. The Vicar and Churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council wished to make the chapel suitable for other forms of service in addition to Holy Communion. There were three objectors in response to the public notice, only one of whom became a party opponent. His principal objection was that "The Chapel dedicated to Our Lady is for prayer and celebration of the Eucharist. It is not intended as a place for any other gathering, nor is it appropriate for con-celebration." The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and granted a faculty.

The proposal was to improve the south west entrance into the Abbey, partly as there was no processional entry into the nave and partly to make entrance easier for the disabled. This would involve the replacement of the Victorian draught lobby. The Victorian Society opposed the proposal, but did not wish to be a party opponent. At the conclusion of a hearing, the Chancellor granted a faculty: “… I am satisfied that, although the removal or alteration of the lobby would indeed adversely affect the character of the abbey as a building of special architectural or historic interest, the necessity for change based upon the need for disabled access has clearly been proved and outweighs any argument for its retention.” The faculty was subject to a condition that the dismantled Victorian draft lobby should be stored in the abbey (in case future generations might wish to reinstate it) and the dismantled pieces should marked or labelled to show both their provenance and the fact that they remained the subject of the faculty jurisdiction.

Extensive reordering works were proposed. The controversial aspects of the proposals were the removal of the pews, their replacement with chairs, and the installation of a new timber floor. The Chancellor was satisfied that the public benefit to be derived from the works would outweigh any harm to the interior of the church and he therefore granted a faculty.

Medieval tracery and stained glass forming the east window of the church had been removed in the 1880s, due to subsidence. New tracery and stained glass were installed. The old glass and tracery were placed in storage. In 1975 the tracery was laid out near the replacement east window and the glass was given on loan to the Stained Glass Museum at Ely.The Vicar and Churchwardens now sought a faculty to convert the loan of the glass to a gift. Re St Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches considered. Faculty granted

Faculty granted for the installation of an audio-visual system in a Grade II* Queen Anne church.

The Petitioner applied for permission to erect a memorial to her son, who had been tragically run over and killed by a motor car. The memorial as installed bore features which were not mentioned in the memorial application - black stone; gold lettering; a photo plaque; the insignia of a football club; and the club colours (red and white) painted in alternate stripes along the edges of the memorial. The Chancellor directed that the edges of the memorial should be painted black, and the photo plaque should be removed or replaced with an incised, uncoloured portrait. In default of the amendments being made within three months, the Chancellor directed that the memorial should be removed from the churchyard.