This appeal concerns the interpretation of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act). The single issue is whether the 1978 Act has overriding effect. If it does then a contribution claim can be brought under the 1978 Act even though the contribution claim is governed by a foreign law rather than English law. Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH (AKV) argues that it does not have overriding effect.

What is the correct approach that should be taken by the courts and tribunals to evidence and the burden and standard of proof in historical claims for the recovery of overpaid Value Added Tax.

The appeal raises questions about the proper approach to granting relief under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Supreme Court is asked to decide: 

                (1) Whether a successful claimant’s expectation, in this case of inheritance of a family farm, was an appropriate starting point when considering a remedy; and
                (2) Whether the remedy granted, namely payment of a lump sum which would in effect result in the sale of the farm, went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances.

(1) Were tax assessments made by HMRC in 2005 made out of time and therefore time barred? 

                (2) Do HMRC have an implied power to refuse to accept a sum claimed by a taxpayer by way of input tax?

Section 6(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides that, if the Court has decided that the defendant benefited from the relevant wrongdoing or conduct then it must make a confiscation order requiring the defendant to pay the recoverable amount of that benefit, but that the requirement to make a confiscation order applies "only if, or to the extent that, it would not be disproportionate to require the defendant to pay the recoverable amount." This appeal concerns the meaning of "disproportionate" in the context of that provision.

The proposed appeal relates to the scope of permitted legal expenditure as an exception to a restraint order granted pursuant to section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether section 41(4) prohibits an exception for reasonable legal expenses in respect of civil proceedings relating to the same or similar facts as those of the offence(s) giving rise to the restraint order.