The Respondent brought a claim alleging that the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service ("the Services") acted tortiously, causing personal injury to the Respondent, by allegedly sending questions to the CIA inviting them to use those questions in interrogations of the Respondent for the purpose of attempting to elicit information of interest to the Services. The personal injury is alleged to be the result of the Respondent being arbitrarily detained by the CIA without trial at secret CIA "black site" facilities and being subjected to extreme mistreatment and torture during interrogations conducted by the CIA in: Thailand; Poland; Morocco; Lithuania; Afghanistan; and Guantánamo Bay ("the Six Countries"). The torts alleged are misfeasance, conspiracy, trespass, false imprisonment and negligence.
A preliminary issue arose as to whether the law applicable to the Respondent's claim is the law of England and Wales or the law of the Six Countries. The High Court found that the applicable law is the law of the Six Countries. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the applicable law is the law of England and Wales.

This case concerns two British patent applications (the "Applications") for two inventions that the appellant, Dr Thaler, stated (in the Applications) were created by an AI machine known as DABUS in the absence of a traditional human inventor. Dr Thaler is the sole owner, creator and user of DABUS. It is not in issue whether DABUS created the inventions autonomously.
On 4 December 2019, the respondent handed down a decision refusing to accept the designations of DABUS as the inventor in the Applications pursuant to section 13(2) of the 1977 Act on the ground that DABUS is not a person, as envisaged by sections 7 and 13 of the 1977 Act. Dr Thaler’s appeal of the respondent’s decision was dismissed in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The appellant, Mr Griffiths, purchased an all-inclusive holiday from the respondent. During that holiday, he suffered gastric illness as a result (he alleges) of contaminated food and drink consumed in the hotel.
Mr Griffiths subsequently brought a claim against the respondent for breach of contract and pursuant to the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992. At trial, Mr Griffiths relied on the expert evidence of a microbiologist in relation to causation, who opined that his illness had been caused by the food and drink consumed at the hotel. The respondent did not rely on its own expert evidence. The Judge in the County Court held that she was not satisfied that the medical evidence showed that it was more likely than not that the appellant's illness had been caused by eating food and drink at the hotel, dismissing the claim.
On appeal in the High Court, this decision was overturned. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the High Court decision was overturned. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.