GD is part of the General Dynamics group, a global defence conglomerate. Libya is a sovereign state which, at the time of these proceedings, had two competing governments. A dispute arose between the parties over a contract for the supply of communications systems. In January 2016, an arbitral tribunal in Geneva made an award of approximately £16 million (plus interest and costs) in favour of GD. The Award remains unsatisfied, but GD wishes, and has attempted, to enforce it in England and Wales. In July 2018, the High Court made an order which, amongst other things, allowed GD to enforce the Award, dispense with the requirement on it to serve a claim form or any associated documents on Libya and provided for Libya to be notified of the order (as the initial hearing had been held without notice).
Subsequently, Libya applied to the High Court to set aside those parts of the initial order dispensing with service. It referred to section 12(1) of the SIA, which requires service of 'any writ or other document required to be served for instituting proceedings against a State' to be transmitted to that state’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the FCO. It asserted that, as no service in this manner either of the arbitration claim form or of the High Court's order giving permission to enforce the Award had occurred, the order had to be set aside and the Award could not be enforced. Accordingly, it argued, any assets of Libya in the jurisdiction could not be used to satisfy the Award. The High Court's initial order was therefore overturned.
However, the Court of Appeal restored the High Court's initial order finding that it was not mandatory for the arbitration claim form or order permitting enforcement to be served through the FCO.
Judgment appealed
[2019] EWCA Civ 1110

The appellant, Ms Meadows, is the mother of a child with haemophilia and autism. Before her pregnancy, Ms Meadows asked Dr Khan to establish whether she carried the haemophilia gene. Following blood tests, the mother was wrongly led to believe that any child she had would not have haemophilia. Had Ms Meadows known that she carried the haemophilia gene, she would have undergone foetal testing for haemophilia when she was pregnant. This would have revealed the foetus was affected. Ms Meadows would then have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, and her child would not have been born.
Ms Meadows sought damages from Dr Khan based on wrongful birth. She argued that Dr Khan was liable for all the consequences of the pregnancy. Dr Khan admitted liability for the consequences of the child's haemophilia, but denied liability in relation to the autism.
The High Court held that Ms Meadows was entitled to damages in relation to the costs of bringing up a child with haemophilia and that she was entitled to the additional costs in relation to her child’s autism, even though that was an unrelated condition.
The Court of Appeal allowed Dr Khan’s appeal. Ms Meadows now appeals to the Supreme Court.