The case relates to a trust established by Mr Haworth for the benefit of himself and his family which held shares in a company. In order to avoid capital gains tax on the disposal of shares held by the trust, Mr Haworth was advised that the existing Jersey trustees should resign in favour of trustees resident in Mauritius. This arrangement, known as a ‘round-the-world’ scheme, was designed to take advantage of a double taxation treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. Mr Haworth and his advisers duly enacted the scheme in 2000.

                In 2016, HMRC sent Mr Haworth a follower notice, which renders the recipient liable to a penalty if he does not take steps to counteract or surrender a tax advantage, and an accelerated payment notice, which requires up-front payment of the disputed tax. Mr Haworth initiated judicial review proceedings of HMRC’s decision to issue these notices. At first instance, Mr Haworth was unsuccessful. However, the Court of Appeal allowed Mr Haworth’s appeal and quashed the notices.

The Respondent ("Servier") was granted a patent ("the Patent"), which related to medical drugs, by the European Patent Office ("EPO"). After a challenge to the Patent, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2008, the EPO Technical Board of Appeal revoked the Patent. The Appellants ("the NHS") claim damages from Servier on the basis of the unlawful means tort because, the NHS alleges, Servier obtained the Patent from the EPO and subsequently defended the Patent in both the EPO and English courts on the basis of representations about the Patent’s novelty. Servier, the NHS alleges, knew these representations to be false or were made with reckless indifference to their truth. This is said to have caused economic loss to the NHS, as it has not been able to buy cheaper drugs.

The Appellants took part in a demonstration protesting the Defence and Security International weapons fair at the Excel Centre. They were charged with obstructing the highway, contrary to section 137 Highways Act 1980. They were acquitted at Trial because their actions fell within the "lawful authority or excuse" defence contained in section 137 Highways Act 1980. The Director for Public Prosecutions appealed successfully by way of case stated to the High Court. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.