The petitioners proposed to erect a large sculpture of the head of Oscar Wilde by Sir Eduardo Paolozzi in a public park, which was subject to the faculty jurisdiction because it had once been a detached burial ground for St Luke's, Chelsea.

Following the grant of a faculty for the felling of particular trees in the churchyard, the petitioners’ contractor in error felled two trees not covered by the faculty. A petition was issued for a confirmatory faculty; the contractor was added as an additional party.

JR87, the first respondent, now nine, attended a controlled primary school in Belfast and took part in non-denominational Christian religious education (RE) and collective worship (CW). Her parents described themselves as ‘broadly humanist’ and had not raised their daughter in any religious tradition. Once she began attending school, however, they noticed that she would say a prayer before eating and ask them questions about God and religion. They voiced their concerns to the school about its RE teaching and were told that its provision of RE and CW was ‘bible-based’, followed the core syllabus for education and complied with the relevant legislation. They challenged this, arguing that the relevant legislation contravened their Convention rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol 1 (‘A2P1’). They were successful in the lower court and the Department of Education appealed.

The petitioner sought a faculty for the exhumation of her mother's body from a consecrated burial ground, where she had recently been buried, in order to re-inter her in another consecrated burial ground, within the same diocese. The general rule enunciated by the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery is that because of the theological principle that Christian burial is final, a faculty for exhumation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. In this case, however, the petition was brought because of the proximity of the mother's grave to those of close family members of the petitioner's ex-husband, who had been violent and abusive towards her and her children over a period of some eight years. Neither the petitioner nor her children could visit her mother's grave because it caused them flashbacks, and the petitioner's GP confirmed that she was having nightmares and panic attacks and was suffering from anxiety and depression.

The petitioners sought a faculty for the disposal by sale of two damp-affected paintings. The DAC recommended the proposal. The court, out of an abundance of caution, directed consultation with the CBC pursuant to rule 9.6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (under which consultation with the CBC is mandatory on a petition for the conservation, alteration or disposal of an article of special historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest). The CBC preferred to see the conservation and retention of the paintings, there being a strong presumption against the sale of church treasures. The petitioners described the CBC's position as unrealistic, and the DAC noted that the paintings were of limited significance; they would continue to deteriorate if kept in the church; and the petitioners had neither the funds nor the inclination to seek them to fund their restoration.