The appellant’s predecessor in title, Millgate Developments Ltd, built housing units on land near Maidenhead, in breach of restrictive covenants benefitting the adjoining land where a children’s hospice has been constructed. After the housing units were completed, Millgate applied for the modification or discharge of the restrictive covenants pursuant to s 84 Law of Property Act 1925. The Upper Tribunal granted the application, subject to the payment of compensation to the respondent, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision and refused the s 84 application.

The Appellants manufacture pharmaceuticals, including the drug perindopril. The Respondents, each of whom is acting for the NHS in one of the four UK nations, brought proceedings against the Appellants for damages caused by what they allege was the Appellants’ anti-competitive behaviour, which allegedly delayed the introduction of a generic substitute that would have been cheaper.
Previously, in Case T-691/14 Servier SAS v European Commission, the General Court of the European Union ("GCEU") had annulled a part of the European Commission’s decision by which it was found that the Appellants had infringed Article 102 TFEU. Appeals (by both Servier and the Commission) against the judgment are currently outstanding before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In the present proceedings, the Appellants sought to rely on a number of factual findings made by the GCEU in the course of its judgment and argued that the English courts are bound by those findings.
The High Court and the Court of Appeal have held that the propositions on which the Appellants seek to rely are not res judicata as a matter of EU law, and are not binding in these proceedings. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Judgment appealed
[2019] EWCA Civ 1096

On 25 August 2010, the Appellant, who had previously been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, stabbed her mother to death whilst expiring a serious psychotic episode. It is common ground between the parties that this would not have happened but for the Respondent’s breaches of duty in failing to respond in an appropriate way to the Appellant’s deteriorating mental health at the time.
                
                The Appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility and has been subject to a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and detention pursuant to section 41 of the same Act ever since.
                In the present proceedings, she claims damages caused by her killing of her mother under six heads: (i) damages for the depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder; (ii) damages for loss of liberty; (iii) loss of amenity; (iv) £61,944 being the share in her mother’s estate which she did not inherit due to operation of the Forfeiture Act 1982; (v) cost of psychotherapy; (vi) cost of a care manager/support worker.
                
                Her claim was dismissed by Mr Justice Jay, and the Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. She now appeals to the Supreme Court.