In 2016, HHJ McKenna granted an interim injunction preventing Mr Jones from entering a large part of central Birmingham, save for exceptional circumstances, on account of his alleged involvement in gang-related activities. This order was appealed to the High Court as being incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees an individual’s right to a fair trial. The High Court found there was no incompatibility. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Mr Neil McCulloch died on 7 April 2012 at Forth Valley Royal Hospital, having suffered a cardiac arrest at home. The appellants are Mr McCulloch's widow and other relatives. They claim that his death was caused by the negligence of Dr Catherine Labinjoh, a consultant cardiologist employed by the respondent, the Forth Valley Health Board. Among other things, the appellants allege that, in line with the duty in Montgomery, Dr Labinjoh was required to discuss the option of using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with Mr McCulloch.
The appellants' claim failed before both the Outer House and the Inner House of the Court of Session. Both courts held that the duty in Montgomery does not require a doctor to discuss a course of treatment with their patient if the doctor has concluded, applying their professional skill and judgment, that it is not a reasonable option in the circumstances of the case and the doctor's view is supported by a responsible body of medical opinion. They also held that, even if negligence had been established, the claim would still have failed because the appellants had not proven on the balance of probabilities that it caused Mr McCulloch's death. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mrs Philipp, the Respondent, was a customer of Barclays Bank. She and her husband, Dr Philipp, fell victim to an authorised push payment fraud which was perpetrated by a third-party fraudster posing as an operative working for the Financial Conduct Authority in conjunction with the National Crime Agency. As a result of the fraud, Mrs Philipp was deceived into transferring £700,000 from her Barclays current account to two bank accounts in the UAE. Attempts to recall the funds that had been transferred were unsuccessful. Mrs Philipp sued Barclays claiming that Barclays owed her a duty to observe reasonable care and skill in and about executing her instructions, and that this duty required Barclays to refrain from executing her payment instructions if and for so long as it had reasonable grounds for believing that the instructions were an attempt to misappropriate funds from Mrs Philipp. Mrs Philipp alleges that Barclays acted in breach of the duty (said to be derived from the decision of Steyn J in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363, which recognised what has come to be known as ‘the Quincecare duty’): (i) by making the payments from her account, and (ii) in not taking adequate steps to recover the payments once the fraud had been discovered. Barclays applied to strike out Mrs Philipp’s case and/or sought summary dismissal, for which application was granted. Mrs Philipp appealed to the Court of Appeal, who unanimously allowed her appeal. Barclays now appeals to the UKSC.