The appellant, a Lebanese company, entered into a Franchise Development Agreement with Al Homaizi Foodstuff Company ("AHFC"), a Kuwaiti company, as Licensee. In 2005 AHFC became a subsidiary of the respondent, Kout Food Group ("KFG"), following a corporate reorganisation. A dispute arose under the FDA which the appellant referred to arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration. The arbitration was only commenced against KFG, not AHFC.
                The majority arbitrators found that KFG was bound by and in breach of the Franchise Development Agreement. The respondent applied to the Paris Cour d’Appel to have the Award set aside. Soon afterwards, the appellant issued proceedings in the Commercial Court in London for enforcement of the Award.
                The English court held that the governing law was English law, but that KFG was not a party and hence not in breach of the Franchise Development Agreement. It refused to make a final determination refusing enforcement pending determination of the proceedings before the Paris court. The Court of Appeal agreed that the governing law was English law, that KFG was not a party and not in breach but held that the court below should have made a final determination, and it made such determination. The appellant appeals against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Kostal UK Ltd employed Mr Dale Dunkley and the other appellants, who are all members of "Unite," a trade union. Kostal and Unite signed a Recognition and Procedural Agreement in February 2015, and formal pay negotiations commenced in October 2015. Following the inception of such negotiations, Kostal made an offer to the appellants. Mr Coop (on behalf of Unite) gave Unite’s members a "free vote," neither recommending acceptance nor rejection of the offer, in a forthcoming ballot.
                The ballot took place in December 2015, and just under 80% of members voted to reject the proposal. By letter dated 10 December 2015, Mr Johnson of Kostal sent a letter to all employees, making the offer that had been rejected by ballot to each employee directly. The reason given for doing so was that, given the short timeframe, the offer was made to employees directly so that a Christmas bonus could be paid before the end of the year.
                Mr Coop wrote to Mr Johnson on 14 January 2016 putting him on notice that he believed the letter making the offer directly to employees was a breach of S. 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992. Mr Johnson responded by letter dated 29 January 2016 rejecting that contention.