The Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify him granting a faculty for the exhumation of the cremated remains of the petitioner's father from Kenilworth Cemetery and reinterment with the cremated remains of the petitioner's mother in a grave in the churchyard of St. Nicholas Kenilworth, which already contained the remains of the petitioner's aunt. At the time of the father's death the petitioner had been told mistakenly that burial in the churchyard was not possible, whilst in fact it was possible to inter into an existing grave which would become a family grave.

The petitioner's father had died in 2005 and his cremated remains had been interred in the cemetery. His widow, during her lifetime, had expressed a wish to have her cremated remains buried in a more accessible part of the cemetery and for her husband's cremated remains to be exhumed and reinterred in the same grave as her own remains. The widow died in 2017. The petitioner applied for a faculty for exhumation and reinterment of her father's ashes, even though it would be possible to inter the ashes of her mother in the plot where her father's ashes were interred. The Chancellor determined that there were no special circumstances, within the guidelines set out in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam. 299, to justify granting a faculty for exhumation.

Keynsham Town Council sought a faculty  for "The laying flat on its appropriate grave any tombstone or other monument found on inspection to be unstable or dangerous in some other respect . Such permission to cover both past and future works."  The Council had already laid flat 178 memorials without a faculty. Notice of Objection was received from 20 members of the public, of whom some became parties opponent. The Chancellor decided that it was appropriate to grant a confirmatory faculty, but that a separate faculty would be needed for works in the future, and he set out conditions which would apply to future works.

The petitioner’s son had died aged 16 in 2011 after being struck by a car driven by a drunken driver. His school had put pressure on the petitioner to have a funeral carried out before the GCSE period started, and the Coroner had told the petitioner that the only option at the time was burial, though the petitioner had preferred cremation. The petitioner was not informed that her son was to be buried in a consecrated part of the burial ground, nor of the legal implications of interment in consecrated ground. She now wished to have her son’s body exhumed and cremated, so that she could retain his cremated remains until her own death, when she wished his remains and her own to be buried together. The Chancellor considered that “there was a fundamental mistake of fact on the part of the petitioner as to the nature of the grave plot in which she had agreed to have her son’s body interred, and its legal consequences”. This and a number of additional special factors set out in the judgment led the Chancellor to decide that it was appropriate to grant a faculty.

A memorial was installed within a couple of years of the petitioner's father dying in 1946, when the petitioner was a small child. In 2011 the petitioner's cousin and her aunt decided to replace the original memorial with a black polished granite memorial with kerbs and green chippings, and the installation was carried out without faculty. The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the removal of the second memorial and the erection of a replica of the original. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner was the heir at law in respect of the first memorial, the person who purchased the memorial (assumed to be the petitioner's mother) having died. He accordingly granted a faculty to the petitioner.

As part of its policy on climate change, to reduce its carbon footprint, the College wished to place solar panels on both the north and south sides of the Chapel roof. The main arguments of the consultees against the proposal were that the panels would be partially visible through the parapet tracery from a few viewpoints. The Church Building Council also questioned whether panels on the north side of the roof could generate enough energy to justify them. The Chancellor was satisfied that the scheme would benefit the College and would help it towards reaching its net zero target. He determined that he would grant a faculty for solar panels on both sides of the roof, or on the south side only, dependent upon an updated assessment of the potential carbon payback for the north roof and calculations and observations as to the effect on the structure without an identical weight on the north roof, were the eventual decision to allow for solar panels on the south roof only.  The assessment should be produced within 28 days and provided to the DAC and other bodies who had been involved in the process, such assessment to be produced within 28 days and then submitted to the consultees for comment within a further 21 days.

A boy had died, aged 8, in 2023. Under pressure from the boy’s grandmother his body was buried near relatives in Kingston Cemetery. The boy’s mother, would have preferred cremation, suffered deep grief, for which she received medical treatment. Neither the parents nor their son were of the Christian faith, and some time later the parents learned that the boy’s body had been buried in a consecrated part of the cemetery. The mother, with the consent of the father, petitioned for exhumation, so that her son’s body could be cremated and the ashes interred elsewhere. Before the date for exhumation, the father, who had separated from his wife, withdrew his consent, stating that he had recently become a Christian and “the situation does not feel right to me.” The Chancellor set aside the faculty for exhumation and referred the case to the Deputy Chancellor, who considered that there were exceptional grounds to grant a faculty for exhumation and cremation. It had been a mistake in 2023 for the boy’s body to be buried in consecrated ground when the parents had previously declared themselves to be atheists.

A faculty was sought for the following in the unlisted church which was built in 1969-1970: replacement of the existing twenty pews with one hundred and twenty Alpha SB2M chairs and four stacking trollies; a data projector to the front archway; an overhead retractable screen to the wall above the reredos; a lighting bar and stage lights to the front archway; replacement of the existing sound desk housing with a larger housing to accommodate additional equipment. Two parishioners wrote a letter of objection, but did not become parties opponent. They claimed that there had been insufficient consultation in the parish and that the audio-visual equipment had already been installed. The Chancellor was satisfied that there had been adequate consultation and that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works. As for part of the works being completed already, the Chancellor accepted the explanation and apology given by the petitioners. A faculty was granted in respect of all the works.

The petitioner's late father, a Muslim, had been buried in a grave in part of the cemetery consecrated for burials according to the rites of the Church of England. It was unclear whether this had been pointed out to the family at the time of death (as none of the cemetery staff were in post when the father was buried), but probably not. Also, the burial had been limited to single depth, because of the ground conditions. The petitioner's mother, who had recently died, had been buried in an unconsecrated part of the cemetery. The petitioner stated that it had been the wish of his parents to be buried together. It had not been possible to bury the petitioner's mother in the same grave as her husband (even disregarding the fact that the grave was consecrated. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to enable exhumation of the petitioner's father's remains, for reinterment in the unconsecrated grave where his mother was buried.

In 1985 the petitioner's young sister's body had been buried in a consecrated part of Lambeth Cemetery. The family are Italian Roman Catholics, and when the burial took place they had no understanding of the significance of burial in consecrated ground, and it had been the intention of the parents after ten or so years to return to Southern Italy and take their daughter’s remains with them with a view to reburial in an above-ground mausoleum in South Italy, where that form of burial is common. The plan to return to Italy changed, but in 1998 a new mausoleum was opened at Streatham Park Cemetery, and since then it had been much used by the Italian community. The petitioner wished to move his sister's body to the mausoleum. The Chancellor granted a faculty, on the basis that at the time of burial there had been a mistake in the family's understanding of the nature of, and the consequences of, interment in consecrated ground, which had not been explained to them.