Cherrie Ann-Marie Robinson, a Jamaican national, was convicted of supplying a Class A drug (cocaine) in the UK in 2006. The Home Secretary sought to deport her but in the course of her lengthy appeal proceedings she had a son who is a UK citizen, and for whom she is the primary carer.
Ms Robinson's appeal against deportation was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal found that there were errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision, set it aside and remade it, allowing Ms Robinson's appeal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary's appeal. Ms Robinson now appeals to the Supreme Court.

This case concerns an application for a CPO to enable the continuation of proceedings brought by the respondent as a proposed class representative for 46.2 million people who between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2008 purchased goods and/or services from businesses in the UK that accepted Mastercard cards. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") concluded that these claims were not suitable to be brought in collective proceedings and it therefore declined to make a CPO in the case. The Court of Appeal set aside this order and remitted the application for a CPO to the CAT. The appellants now seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Appellant is serving a life sentence in prison for rape. His minimum term was completed on 1 August 2005. On 10 March 2014, the Parole Board decided not to direct his release on licence and not to recommend that he be transferred to open conditions. The Appellant successfully challenged the latter part of this recommendation by way of judicial review, in proceedings in which the Parole Board played no part. The Appellant sought an order for costs against the Parole Board. Following the receipt of written submissions, the Court declined to make this order. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

This case concerns non-negotiable chips and promotional vouchers ("Non-Negs") which are worth their face value when played in a casino game. The issue in the appeal is whether a player who places a bet in one of London Club Management Ltd’s casinos using Non-Negs, has staked "value, in money or money’s worth" with the casino, within the meaning of section 11(10)(a) of the Finance Act 1997.
This issue is relevant to London Club Management Ltd’s liability to gaming duty in respect of Non-Negs that are lost to (or otherwise retained by) London Club Management Ltd as banker.