In March 2013, Balhousie Care Ltd acquired a care home at Deveron Way, Huntly, Aberdeenshire on a zero-rated basis for VAT purposes. In order to finance the acquisition and further developments, it entered into a sale-and-leaseback arrangement with Target Healthcare REIT. Pursuant to that arrangement, Balhousie Care conveyed the land to Target and Target immediately granted the land on a long lease back to Balhousie.
HMRC considered this involved the disposal of Balhousie Care’s entire interest in the care home. It sought to impose a VAT self-supply charge on Balhousie Holdings Ltd (an entity which was part of the same VAT group) under paragraph 36(2) of Schedule 10 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and issued a penalty notice. Balhousie Holdings successfully appealed to the First-tier Tribunal but HMRC’s approach was upheld by the Upper Tribunal and Inner House of the Court of Session.

The case concerns equal pay claims brought by supermarket employees of Asda ("Appellant"), nearly all women ("Respondents"). They are claiming equal pay with comparators employed in the distribution depots, jobs done overwhelmingly by men. A preliminary hearing took place in the Employment Tribunal to determine whether the Respondents are entitled to compare themselves for equal pay purposes with employees working in the Appellant's distribution operations. The Employment Tribunal allowed the claims to proceed on this basis. The Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeals. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

G is an only child of divorced parents. Until February 2020, her parents lived near to each other in South Africa. However, after telling friends that she was lesbian, G’s mother began to experience persecution from her family in South Africa. As a result, she fled to England with G and made an application for asylum.

                Upon discovering that G had been taken to England, G’s father made an application for her return under the 1980 Hague Convention. At first instance, Lieven J held that the father’s application for a return order should be stayed pending the determination of G’s mother’s asylum claim. The Court of Appeal considered that, in the circumstances, the High Court was not barred from determining the father’s application for a return order, nor was it barred from making such an order. The mother now appeals to the Supreme Court.