(1) Does the Court of Session and/or the Sheriff Court already have power to grant a warrant for inhibition and arrestment on the dependence of an application to an Employment Tribunal by a worker alleging unlawful work and workplace related discrimination and/or harassment on grounds of sex and/or race and/or religion or belief? 

                (2) If the Court of Session and/or the Sheriff Court have this power, does the requirement for an applicant in an Employment Tribunal claim to raise a court action constitute a breach of the common law and EU principles of effectiveness or effective remedy? 

                (3) If the Court of Session and/or the Sheriff Court do not have this power, does this constitute a breach of EU law?

This appeal relates to the construction and effect of a procedural rule in relation to the costs of legal proceedings that applies to all personal injury claims. 

                In particular, the issue before the Court is whether there is jurisdiction in a personal injury claim that attracts the application of Part 44 Section II of the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR"), which relates to Qualified One-way Costs Shifting ("QOCS"), to allow the set-off of an order for costs made against the Claimant against an order for costs made in the Claimant’s favour.

Whether certain provisions of two Bills passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2021 (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill) are outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

This appeal concerns the legal consequences of a ruling that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 (the 2005 Rules) were ultra vires. The UKSC is asked to decide:
Are individual appeal decisions taken under the 2005 Rules automatically a nullity?
                If not, what is the correct approach to take when considering applications to quash or set aside appeal decisions taken under the 2005 Rules?
                Was there procedural unfairness on the facts of TN's case?