On 22 September 2015 the respondent pleaded guilty to three offences contrary to s 105A Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. The prosecution sought and was granted a confiscation order. In determining the amount of property owned by the respondent available for confiscation, the court took into account her half share of the matrimonial home, which was jointly owned with her husband. Section 160A (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides that the court must give any person other than the defendant holding an interest in the property an opportunity to make representations, before exercising the power to determine the extent of the defendant’s interest. The Court of Appeal held that the failure of the court to provide this opportunity to the respondent’s husband rendered the confiscation order invalid.

The patents are concerned with biotechnology, and in particular the production of human antibodies using transgenic mice. By the priority date, the potential uses of antibodies (also known as immunoglobulins) for treating human disease had been well recognised, and a number of different antibodies had been developed and approved for such use. The patents describe a technique for making such antibodies.
Regeneron appealed the decision of Henry Carr J that European Patent (UK) No 1 360 287 and its divisional European Patent (UK) No 2 264 163 ("the 287 patent" and "the 163 patent" respectively) are invalid. Kymab cross-appealed against the judge's finding that its various strains of transgenic mice would infringe claims 5 and 6 of the 287 patent and claim 1 of the 163 patent if those patents had not been invalid.
Regeneron’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal. Kymab’s cross-appeal was dismissed.

XY is the adult sibling of three younger sisters who are the subject of Compulsory Supervision Orders. XY’s application to be deemed a "relevant person" for the purposes of those proceedings was refused by a pre-hearing panel. He appealed to the Sheriff, arguing that the relevant legislation was incompatible with Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. This appeal was dismissed, as was an appeal by way of case stated to the Court of Session, which relied on the reasoning in two earlier cases: ABC v Principal Reporter 2018 SLT 1281 and DM v Locality Reported SLT 1308. The appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.