The Supreme Court is asked to decide the following legal questions:
Did the Divisional Court apply the wrong test when determining whether removal to Rwanda would breach article 3?
                If the Divisional Court applied the right test, was the Court of Appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that Rwanda was a safe third country?
                If the Divisional Court applied the wrong test or there was another basis for interfering with its conclusion, was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that Rwanda was not a safe third country because asylum seekers would face a real risk of refoulement?
                Did the Home Secretary fail to discharge her procedural obligation under article 3 to undertake a thorough examination of Rwanda's asylum procedures to determine whether they adequately protect asylum seekers against the risk of refoulement?
                Were there substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 in Rwanda itself, in addition to the risk of refoulement?
                Does the Asylum Procedures Directive continue to have effect as retained EU law? This is relevant because the Directive only permits asylum seekers to be removed to a safe third country if they have some connection to it. None of the claimants has any connection to Rwanda.

The Limitation Act 1980 sets out the time limits (or limitation periods) for bringing different kinds of legal claims. Section 32(1)(b) postpones the commencement of the ordinary limitation period where any fact relevant to the claimant's right of action has been "deliberately concealed" from them by the defendant. Section 32(2) provides that, for the purposes of section 32(1), "deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty."
In this appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to clarify the meaning of the phrases "deliberately concealed" in section 32(1)(b) and "deliberate commission of a breach of duty" in section 32(2), so as to determine whether Mrs Potter's claim against Canada Square Operations Ltd ("Canada Square"), was issued too late and is therefore time barred.