In this case SM, a Rwandan national, is challenging the Court of Appeal's decision that the purported grant of bail by the Tribunal was void from the outset.

                SM served a prison sentence for robbery between 17 December 2005 and 30 March 2015. The Parole Board recommended his release on licence and he was moved into immigration detention. On 30 July 2015 First-tier Tribunal Judge Narayan decided SM could be released on immigration bail. Although no one noticed this at the time, Judge Narayan’s order did not comply with the Immigration Act 1971 because it did not require SM to surrender to an immigration officer at a specified time and place or at all.

                The Home Secretary imposed restrictions on SM. On a judicial review by SM, Judge Peter Lane held that SM remained on bail granted by Judge Narayan and therefore the Home Secretary's restrictions (save for the restriction prohibiting SM from entering employment paid or unpaid) had no legal effect. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal decided the defects in Judge Narayan's order made it unlawful from the outset, so SM was never validly bailed and the Home Secretary was free to impose her own restrictions.

In July 2016, the Employment Tribunal held that the appellant, Ms Anwar, had been subjected to unlawful workplace and work related harassment on the grounds of her sex and her religion or beliefs. The Tribunal ordered Ms Anwar’s former employer and her former line manager to pay Ms Anwar £74,647.96 on a joint and several basis.
Ms Anwar sought to enforce the judgment. Her former employer’s bank statements indicated that, as at 1 August 2016, it had more than £68,000 in its account. However, by 7 October 2016, that sum had fallen to around £4,000. Ms Anwar believes that her former employer took steps to dispose of its funds to prevent Ms Anwar from receiving the sums due to her under the Employment Tribunal’s order. She has not yet received any of the sums due under the order, and has no reasonable expectation of ever doing so.
Ms Anwar maintains that she would not be in this position if she had been able to effect an arrestment of funds on the dependence of her Employment Tribunal application. She issued a petition for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Ms Anwar claims that – because there is no express legislation which provides Employment Tribunals with the power to grant an arrestment in cases like hers – the Secretary of State has failed properly to implement in Scotland the provisions of Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. She argues that this is incompatible with her EU law right to an effective remedy.
The Outer House of the Court of Session dismissed Ms Anwar’s petition for judicial review. Her appeal was dismissed by the Inner House. Ms Anwar now appeals to the Supreme Court.