The appeal arises from two separate claims for compensation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, each brought on the ground that an unfair relationship arose between the claimant debtor and the defendant creditor. The allegation in each case is that an unfair relationship arose by reason of RBS’s non-disclosure of commission received from the insurer in respect of payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policies taken out at the same time as agreements for credit cards from RBS. The claimant in each case succeeded at first instance before a District Judge, and on first appeal to a Circuit Judge. The Court of Appeal heard appeals in both cases together. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and dismissed the claims. The claimants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

This case concerns the "Tuna Bond" scandal in Mozambique. Three corporate vehicles wholly owned by Mozambique (the "SPVs") entered into supply contracts (the "Contracts") with three of the respondents (the "Privinvest companies") for the development of Mozambique's exclusive economic zone. The SPVs borrowed the purchase funds from various banks, over which borrowing Mozambique granted sovereign guarantees (the "Guarantees"). The Guarantees are governed by English law and provide for dispute resolution in the courts of England and Wales. Mozambique accuses the Privinvest companies and various others of paying significant bribes to Mozambique's corrupt officials, exposing it to a potential liability of approximately US $2bn under the Guarantees, and accordingly brought proceedings in England and Wales. The Contracts are governed by Swiss law and provide for dispute resolution by arbitration. Mozambique is not a signatory to the Contracts, but Privinvest contends that as a matter of Swiss law Mozambique is party to them and bound by the arbitration agreement within them. On that basis, Privinvest sought a stay of all Mozambique's claims pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. As a preliminary question, the issue arose as to whether Mozambique's claims were "matters" which fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements under section 9. At first instance, the High Court held the claims were not. The Court of Appeal disagreed on appeal.