The Fisher family established the Stan James betting business. This appeal concerns the transfer of part of the Stan James betting business from a UK resident company, Stan James (Abingdon) Limited to a Gibraltar resident company, Stan James Gibraltar Limited ("SJG") in 2000, and the assessments to tax made on Stephen, Peter and Anne Fisher on the basis that they had "power to enjoy" income of SJG. Assessments to tax were issued by HMRC to each of Stephen and Anne Fisher in respect of the years of assessment 2000/2001 to 2007/2008 and Peter Fisher in respect of the years 2000/2001, 2001/2002, 2003/2004 and 2004/2005. Pursuant to section 739 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1996, HMRC treated the income of SJG as the deemed income of the Fishers in proportion to their respective shareholdings in the company.
The Court of Appeal upheld the tax charges on Stephen and Peter but not Anne. Stephen and Peter now appeal to the Supreme Court. HMRC are cross-appealing in relation to Anne's assessment to tax.

This appeal concerns collective bargaining rights in respect of Deliveroo riders. The appellant, the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain ("the Union") is an independent trade union whose members include Deliveroo riders. The second respondent, Roofoods Ltd ("Deliveroo") operates the Deliveroo food and drinks delivery service.
On 28 November 2016, the Union submitted an application to the first respondent, the Central Arbitration Committee ("the CAC"), that the Union should be recognised by Deliveroo for collective bargaining in respect of a group of Deliveroo riders in the Camden zone. Applications are considered by the CAC in accordance with Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act"). The CAC refused to accept the Union's application on the basis that the riders were not "workers" within the meaning of the 1992 Act. This was because Deliveroo did not require them to provide delivery services personally, but permitted the use of substitutes.
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's claim for judicial review of the CAC's decision. The Union now appeals to the Supreme Court.