The appellant, T, was a 15-year-old child who was subject to a care order. The local authority, CBC, wished to place T in secure accommodation. Since there were no places available in registered secure children's homes, CBC applied to the High Court for orders under its inherent jurisdiction authorising T's placement in non-statutory accommodation. T had consented to the restrictions on her liberty in the placements sought and submitted that the orders restricting her liberty were, therefore, unnecessary.
The High Court did not consider that consent to be valid, and duly made the orders sought by CBC. T seeks to challenge those orders. She does not object to the placements or the restrictions on her liberty, but wishes to be recognised as capable of consenting in law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. T now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The appellant, Mr Efobi, is a black Nigerian and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. He has graduate and postgraduate qualifications in information systems. From August 2013, he was employed by the respondent, Royal Mail Group Ltd ("RMG"). He worked as a postman in the operational department but wanted to be employed in the management/IT service area. He applied for many posts but was unsuccessful. He brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal ("ET") for harassment, victimisation, and direct and indirect race discrimination in relation to his failure to obtain 22 of these posts. 

                The ET rejected his claims of discrimination, but his harassment and victimisation claims succeeded in part. Mr Efobi successfully appealed the ET’s discrimination findings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"). The EAT concluded that the ET had erred in its approach to the burden of proof. RMG successfully appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal. Mr Efobi now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Mr Sanambar was born in Iran in 1995. He arrived in the UK with his mother in 2005, aged 9. Mr Sanambar went on to commit a number of criminal offences.
                In 2013, the Secretary of State decided that Mr Sanambar should be deported to Iran, finding that the public interest in deportation outweighed other factors and would not breach his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

                Mr Sanambar succeeded in overturning the Secretary of State’s deportation decision on appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT). However, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FtT’s decision on the basis the FtT had made a material error of law. The FtT had failed to apply the new formulation of the Immigration Rules and sections 117A-D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and had erroneously focused on Mr Sanambar’s ties to Iran under an older formulation of the Rules. The UT re-made the decision and dismissed Mr Sanambar’s appeal, finding that while he had been resident in the UK for most of his life and was socially and culturally integrated in the UK, there were not "very significant obstacles" to his integration in Iran. Mr Sanambar spoke Farsi, was intelligent and capable of adapting to life in Iran and had connections there. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the UT. Mr Sanambar now appeals to the Supreme Court.