The Appellant is a small mutual building society whose main activity is the provision of mortgage products, while the Respondent was its auditor. The Respondent negligently advised the Appellant that an accounting treatment, "hedge accounting", could be applied to reduce the volatility of the market-to-market (MTM) value of swaps in its accounts.
In reliance on that advice, the Appellant entered into various fixed rate mortgages hedged against long term swaps under which it paid a fixed rate but received a variable rate.
The 2008 global financial crisis led to a fall in interest rates, with the effect that the MTM value of the swaps became negative. When the Respondent&apo;s negligence was realised, the Appellant ceased to apply hedge accounting, closed out the swaps and, in consequence, had to pay the MTM losses on the swaps and transaction fees for breaking the swaps early.
The Appellant brought a claim in negligence against the Respondent. The issue was whether the Respondent was liable for the MTM losses as well as the transaction fees. In the Commercial Court, the judge concluded that the Respondent was not liable for the MTM losses. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal.
The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Respondents were trustees of a trust which could make a claim under a scheme of arrangement. They failed to make a claim on or before the bar date under the scheme of arrangement, which was midnight on Thursday 2 June 2011. The Appellants issued a claim form on Monday 5 June 2017 seeking a remedy from the Respondents for their failure to make the claim. In response, the Respondents argued that the Appellants’ claim was brought after the expiry of the relevant limitation periods.

St Anne's on the Sea Town Council submitted a proposal to Fylde Borough Council, the local planning authority, for a neighbourhood development plan. The draft plan related to land adjacent to that owned by Fylde Coast Farms Ltd. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the draft plan was considered by an independent examiner, who made a report to Fylde Borough Council, recommending that the plan be modified to include land owned by Fylde Coast Farms Ltd and then submitted to a referendum. 
                Fylde Borough Council decided to submit the draft plan to a referendum without the proposed modification. 90% of those voting in the referendum supported the draft plan and Fylde Borough Council subsequently published its decision to make the plan. Just under six weeks later, Fylde Coast Farms Ltd applied for a judicial review of the Council’s decision to make the plan without the examiner’s proposed modification. The Planning Court held that Fylde Coast Farm Ltd’s challenge related to Fylde Borough Council’s decision to hold the referendum without modifying the draft plan, rather than its later decision to make the plan. Since that decision had been published more than six weeks before Fylde Coast Farm Ltd’s claim for judicial review, the Planning Court held that the claim had been brought out of time.
                The Court of Appeal dismissed Fylde Coast Farm Ltd’s appeal. It now appeals to the Supreme Court.