(i) What is the correct approach to the test for whether “the effect of [a foreign criminal]'s deportation on [their] partner or child would be unduly harsh” within the meaning of section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; (ii) What is the correct approach to the test for whether there are “very compelling circumstances” for not deporting a foreign criminal who had been sentenced to imprisonment for more than four years, under section 117C(6) of the same Act, and
                (iii) What is the relevance, if any, of evidence in relation to the foreign criminal’s rehabilitation and how much weight should tribunals accord to such evidence in the context of the above tests, in light of conflicting approaches being endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Binbuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 551 and HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1176?

In what circumstances is it “unduly harsh” to deport a foreign criminal in light of that person’s family life in the United Kingdom, and when are there “very compelling circumstances” against deportation?

Whether a worker’s right to paid annual leave is accumulated according to the working pattern of the worker and/or is pro-rated.

The scope of diplomatic immunity is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the "1961 Convention"). The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether:
a serving diplomat’s employment of a "trafficked" domestic servant at his UK diplomatic residence constitutes the exercise of a "commercial activity", an exception to the 1961 Convention which would prevent him from asserting immunity from civil suit pursuant to the 1961 Convention; and
                in arriving at a determination as to the first issue, the Employment Appeals Tribunal ("EAT") was correct that the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the views of Lords Sumption and Neuberger JSC (the "Sumption Judgment") in the case of Reyes v Al-Malki [2019] AC 735 ("Reyes") represent the "current state of the law" given that, in that case, such comments were not central to the issue decided.