TN is a Vietnamese national. She initially arrived in the United Kingdom in December 2003 and claimed asylum on several occasions before being removed to Vietnam in 2012.
She returned to the UK in May 2014 and made fresh asylum claims. Amongst other things, TN alleged that she had been a victim of trafficking and sexual abuse. On 14 August 2014, TN's asylum claim was rejected. Her appeal, which was determined under the 2005 Rules, was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal a week later. The First-tier Tribunal found that TN's account was not credible because she had given conflicting evidence and there were discrepancies in her account.
TN seeks an order quashing this decision. At first instance, the judge held that the 2005 Rules were ultra vires. However, this did not mean that all appeal decisions made under them were automatically a nullity. Rather, affected persons had to show that there had been procedural unfairness in their particular case. There was no procedural unfairness on the facts of TN’s case.
The Court of Appeal agreed, and dismissed TN’s appeal. TN now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Respondent, Pakistan International Airline Corporation ("PIAC"), had entered into a contract with the Appellant, Times Travel (UK) Ltd ("Times Travel"), pursuant to which Times Travel would act as ticketing agent to PIAC. Times Travel was a small family-owned travel agency. Its business was very largely dependent on its ability to sell PIAC's tickets. By 2012, a large number of PIAC's ticketing agents had either commenced or threatened proceedings to recover substantial sums they said PIAC owed to them by way of commission.
In September 2012, PIAC gave lawful notice of the termination of its existing agency contracts and offered Times Travel a new contract. The new contract contained a waiver by Times Travel of its claims for unpaid commission under the prior arrangements. Times Travel accepted and signed the new contract.
In 2014, Times Travel brought proceedings to recover unpaid commission and other payments which it said were due to it under the prior contractual arrangements. At first instance, the High Court held that Times Travel was entitled to avoid the contract with PIAC on the grounds of economic duress.
The Court of Appeal allowed PIAC's appeal. Times Travel now appeals to the Supreme Court.