Did the Court of Appeal wrongly find the appellant, part of the Jehovah's Witness organisation, to be vicariously liable for a rape committed by one of their elders?

Whether Section 30 of the Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 is incompatible with Articles 5 and/or 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the 'ECHR'). If so, what (if any) remedy is appropriate.

(1) When the Parole Board is deciding whether or not to direct the release of a prisoner on licence, can it only take into account allegations if they are proved on the balance of probabilities?(2)Does the Parole Board’s "Guidance on Allegations" (the Guidance) misstate the law on this issue?

Whether the taxpayer's sale of certain property to an unconnected purchaser was a supply exempt from value added tax ("VAT") under Schedule 10 to the VAT Act 1994.

The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (the "Trustee") is trustee of notes with a nominal value of USD 3bn carrying interest of 5 per cent per annum (the "Notes"). The Trustee has applied for summary judgment of its claim against Ukraine for non-payment of the sums due under the Notes. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Ukraine should be permitted to defend the claim at trial. The appeals raise the following issues:
(i) Did Ukraine have the capacity to issue the Notes or to ensure into the ancillary contracts?
(ii) Were the Notes issued or the ancillary contracts entered into without authority?
(iii) Can Ukraine maintain that it was entitled to avoid the Notes for duress exerted by the Russian Federation?
(iv) Can Ukraine maintain that non-payment of the sums due under the Notes is a lawful countermeasure?

The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (the "Trustee") is trustee of notes with a nominal value of USD 3bn carrying interest of 5 per cent per annum (the "Notes"). The Trustee has applied for summary judgment of its claim against Ukraine for non-payment of the sums due under the Notes. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Ukraine should be permitted to defend the claim at trial. The appeals raise the following issues:
(i) Did Ukraine have the capacity to issue the Notes or to ensure into the ancillary contracts?
(ii) Were the Notes issued or the ancillary contracts entered into without authority?
(iii) Can Ukraine maintain that it was entitled to avoid the Notes for duress exerted by the Russian Federation?
(iv) Can Ukraine maintain that non-payment of the sums due under the Notes is a lawful countermeasure?