News Corp is the publisher of The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and The Sun on Sunday. News Corp argues that the digital editions of these publications were subject to zero-rate VAT for the period 30 August 2010 – 4 December 2016, as they are "newspapers" for the purposes of the VAT Act. HMRC found that News Corp was not entitled to zero-rate the supply of these digital editions. News Corp appealed these decisions. The First-tier Tribunal found that digital editions are not "newspapers" for the purposes of the VAT Act, and so rejected News Corp's claim for recovery of over £35 million. The Upper Tribunal allowed News Corp's subsequent appeal. HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed its appeal. News Corp now appeals to the Supreme Court.

This appeal concerns several flats in Southsea, which form part of a mixed-use commercial and residential block. The Appellants are the individual leaseholders of 38 flats in the building. The Respondent are the Appellants' landlords and own the freehold of the block and wider estate. Each lease provides that the tenant is to pay a service charge comprised of a share of three types of cost of maintaining the building and wider estate - insurance, building services and estate services costs. The share of each type of costs is set at a fixed percentage or 'such part as the Landlord may otherwise reasonably determine' (the "Reapportionment Provisions")
For some years, the Respondent has been demanding service charges in different proportions from those percentages stated in the leases, in reliance on the Reapportionment Provisions. The Appellants challenged that practice. They argued that section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 meant that the Reapportionment Provisions are void. The First-tier Tribunal ("FTT") rejected the leaseholders' argument that the Reapportionment Provisions were rendered void. It considered that the landlords’ re-apportionments were reasonable and so should be enforced.
On appeal by the leaseholders the Upper Tribunal reversed the FTT's decision and held that section 27A(6) rendered the Reapportionment Provisions void. Therefore, neither the landlord nor the FTT had the power to vary the percentages set out in the leases unless the leaseholders agreed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the landlords' appeal on the basis that the effect of Section 27A(6) was to transfer the power to vary the percentages from the landlord to the FTT. It therefore restored the decision of the FTT which had considered the re-apportionment reasonable and so should be enforced. The leaseholders now appeal to the Supreme Court.