The issue is whether there is a right of appeal against an Official Veterinarian’s assessment of the fitness of meat for human consumption where there is a dispute as to the fitness of the meat for human consumption.

Is the Court of Justice of the European Union's admonition that a non-EU citizen who is the primary carer for an EU citizen child may only be deported in "exceptional circumstances" a summary of the conditions that must be met to justify deportation, or an additional threshold?

Where a customer pays a supplier for what both parties mistakenly believe is a VAT-exempt supply, but turns out to be standard rated, can the customer claim a deduction of input tax from HMRC for the VAT element of the original payment?

Did the Supreme Court wrongly decide that Mr Crosland’s disclosure of the result of the Heathrow appeal, in breach of an embargo on the Court’s judgment, constituted a contempt of court? Did the Court then wrongly impose a fine of £5,000 on Mr Crosland, and wrongly order him to pay the Attorney General’s costs in the sum of £15,000?

Whether the UK Government has recognised Interim President Guaido as Head of State of Venezuela and, if so, whether any challenge to the validity of Mr Guaido’s appointments to the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela is justiciable in an English court.

Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion that Her Majesty’s Passport Office’s Policy that (i) an applicant for a passport must declare their gender/sex as being either male or female and (ii) a passport will only be issued bearing a male ("M") or female ("F") indicator in the gender/sex field on the face of the passport and will not be issued with an "unspecified" ("X") gender marker does not unjustifiably breach articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR").

(1) Whether there has been a breach of the procedural obligation under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or of common law principles of independence, or of legitimate expectations, due to the decision of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that there was no evidence to warrant an investigation, compliant with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, into the allegation that the UK Government authorised and used torture in Northern Ireland in relation to two of the "hooded men";
                (2) In particular, whether the Police Service of Northern Ireland is sufficiently independent to carry out any necessary investigation into the treatment of the "hooded men." In finding that it was not the Court of Appeal relied heavily on its previous judgment in McQuillan, a judgment in respect of which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of police independence, inter alia, has now been granted by the Court of Appeal.