Barring legal fees — why does one lone junior barrister (for each party) appear, in a minority of some UK Supreme Court cases?

Question

In most UKSC cases, at least 1 QC and 1 junior barrister appear for each party to the case. Often, multiple QC's and multiple juniors appear. But I have stumbled on exceptions like

• Mathieson v SSWP [2015] UKSC 47, where Respondent was represented by merely a junior barrister. But he, Tim Buley, became QC in 2019.
• Her Majesty's Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 (10 May 2021), where each litigant is represented by merely a junior barrister. Nate Eldredge sussed out that the Applicant's barrister became QC in 2022.
• Just edit this post, if you know of other such UKSC cases.

Rule out legal costs and fees as a reason. Obviously, SSWP and Her Majesty’s Attorney General are wealthy enough to instruct QC's.

And these cases can't simply be easier! If a case were straightforward, it would never have been litigated or appealed up to the UKSC, or been permitted by the UKSC to appeal!

Answer 1

I think the answer is that, despite the wording in the question, this case is simply easier. Note that the Attorney General is listed as the applicant, rather than the appellant.

The case is a straightforward action for contempt of court but since the court in question is the Supreme Court, it heard the case itself (although with a different set of judges).