Sean Eugene Dalton was killed in a bomb explosion at 38 Kildrum Gardens on 31 August 1988 after he went to check on his neighbour who lived at that address. The IRA subsequently took responsibility for the bomb.
A police investigation was opened into the event. It did not result in any individual being charged or convicted of an offence connected to the deaths. An inquest was held into Dalton’s death on 7 December 1989. The coroner found that Dalton died from injuries. There was little further investigation from the police after this.
In February 2005, one of Dalton’s sons lodged a complaint with the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland regarding the police’s behaviour in the context of events leading to his father’s death and the subsequent investigation. The Ombudsman investigated and produced a report on its findings on 10 July 2013. It concluded that a number of the complaints were substantiated and made certain criticisms of the way in which the police’s investigation had been carried out.
Following the completion of the report, a request was sent to the Attorney General on 25 July 2013 asking her to exercise her discretion pursuant to section 14 of the Act to direct a fresh inquest into Dalton’s death in view of the Ombudsman’s conclusions. The Attorney General refused the request on 2 October 2014.
Dalton’s daughter challenged the decision by way of judicial review. The application was refused on 28 March 2017. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the first instance determination on 4 May 2020. The Attorney General now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Target provides outsourced loan administration services to customers. In May 2015, Target sought a Non-Statutory Clearance from HMRC concerning its VAT liability in respect of these services, contending that they are exempt from VAT. HMRC responded with a letter setting out its position that Target's services were vatable. Target requested a review of that decision, which HMRC upheld upon review. Target appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, which was unsuccessful. The Upper Tribunal also held that these services were vatable. Target appealed to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the decision of the Upper Tribunal. Target now appeals to the Supreme Court.