Whether the respondent should have been refused permission to serve his representative claim against the appellant out of the jurisdiction (i) because members of the class had not suffered ‘damage’ within the meaning of section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’); and/or (ii) the respondent was not entitled to bring a representative claim because other members of the class did not have the ‘same interest’ in the claim and were not identifiable; and/or (iii) because the court should exercise its discretion to direct that the respondent should not act as a representative.

Where a proprietary claim is brought by a company against its directors to recover proceeds of crime received in breach of fiduciary duty:

                (1) Can that proprietary claim be asserted in priority to a confiscation order obtained by the Crown Prosecution Service?

                (2) Can the illegality of the directors be attributed to the company in circumstances where the company suffered no loss and stood to profit from the crime?

(1) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the parties made an express choice of English law, and not an implied choice of French law, as governing their arbitration agreement;
                (2) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the summary judgment test to a New York Convention claim which should proceed by way of a rehearing;
                (3) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making a final determination refusing enforcement of the arbitration award.

(1) Whether a "prohibited result" under s. 145B Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 can only arise in circumstances where direct offers to employees take terms outside the scope of collective bargaining on a permanent basis.

Was the Appellant's purported grant of immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal invalidated from the outset by defects in the Tribunal's order, and if not what are the consequences?

The Supreme Court is asked to determine three issues concerning whether Lady Brownlie can serve her claim out of the jurisdiction on FS Cairo, an Egyptian company, with a view to the trial of her claim in the courts in England and Wales (with each claim governed by Egyptian law).

                The issues raised by the FS Cairo on appeal are:
Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that the jurisdictional gateway for claims in tort under CPR 6BPD 3.1(9)(a) was satisfied in this case, in which the accident which gave rise to the claims occurred in Egypt;Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that the Claimant had discharged the burden of establishing that each of her claims, in a claim in which Egyptian law applies, has a reasonable prospect of success:
(a) By relying on the "default rule" or "presumption" that foreign law is the same as English law; and 

                  (b) In the absence of any pleading of Egyptian law.