BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[helen7]

So PWC, who allegegly have £4million to spend on this didn't send off a piece of paper in time and, didn't choose a client who even had a closure notice.

For f*k's sack.

Do we know if Montp got have their ship in order?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is there claim the same as ours? His hands were tied, he couldnt be seen to be making an exception on it being late. I cant actually believe PWC were so stupid to not have filed in time!!!!!

I think there were some differences but the HRA angle is the same.

I know, what can you say.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So PWC, who allegegly have £4million to spend on this didn't send off a piece of paper in time and, didn't choose a client who even had a closure notice.

For f*k's sack.

Do we know if Montp got have their ship in order?

Yes, it beggars belief. Which is why I also think we should not just leave it in the hands of the "professionals" and lawyers. Apparently, PwC's barrister wasn't very good either. He got muddled up on a few occasions and did not present the best case.

I know that the Montp client has got closure notices. It is just to be hoped that their application was in order.

[ASB]

The Judge also suggested to PwC Counsel that they could take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

In other words he would have granted the application were he able to, and rather hopes the court of appeal will.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Is there claim the same as ours? His hands were tied, he couldnt be seen to be making an exception on it being late. I cant actually believe PWC were so stupid to not have filed in time!!!!!

I agree, it might even be a good thing. If it had gone ahead and HMRC later managed to appeal this, we could be back in a mire. This way we have got a heads up on HMRC tactics, with no risk to ours. It's disappointing after the buildup, though.

But you got to say, PWC are right f#ckwits.

[robinhood]

In other words he would have granted the application were he able to, and rather hopes the court of appeal will.

Thats what I'm thinking. It's seem fairly clear to me that there is a case to answer otherwise the judge would have rejected the court of appeal route.

[Emigre]

I was at Court today. DR's summary is spot on. The reality is that nothing was actually decided today on any of the grounds on which we want to fight.

PwC were late with their application and for that reason it was refused. However, the LJ had difficulty determining the appropriate jurisdiction for this case but had no doubt that it will end up in the Luxembourg court.

In today's case, the claimant on the one hand was late applying (they applied in early November) so was refused the right to directly challenge the section 58 legislation. Also, because he had not received a Closure Notice he has not received a formal legal document making a demand for payment. The LJ stated that the August 2008 HMRC bully letter does not constitute a formal demand even though it says you must do this and must do that. (Clearly, the only thing you must do with it now is to take it to the room without a view and use it judiciously).

The LJ also appreciated that the Administrative Court is the only Court that has the authority to declare legislation as incompatible with EHRA. For this reason, this element of his decision has been deferred pending the decision in the Montpelier case on 16th June. This was done on the grounds of avoiding potentially conflicting decisions.

We met with representatives from Montpelier, PwC, KPMG, and junior counsel who had been sent along on behalf of another pending JR (she didn't know who had ultimately instructed her). The MontP representative was very positive after this, largely because he has now seen how HMRC are prepared to defend certain areas and can therefore plan accordingly.

The bottom line here is that nothing is different from yesterday but that 16th June could make a real difference. It is also likely that PwC may fall in behind the MontP case.

It is quite clear from talking to the people we met that we are doing the right thing, behaving the right way, and slowly making the right kind of progress. This is already recognised.

I met two others from this Board in Court. We enjoyed a beer together. It was great to put some faces to some names. You know who you are!

As a pointer to the hearing on 16th June, the Court room is very small, it was full today and they do not permit people to stand. There is little point in an army attending.

Stay faithful. This is the beginning and we have nothing to fear.

[helen7]

For those that attended, did you speak to the Montpelier, PwC, KPMG reps regarding the actions we are taking (writing to MPs, JCHR etc...) to see if they can suggest anything else we could do to help the cause?

[ContractIn]

I was at Court today. DR's summary is spot on.

Thanks Emigre and DR for attending and providing the updates.

I can see the positives going forward, but have some concerns:

Does HMRC see this as they have won R2?
Will MTM get the same judge on the 16th?
Did MTM get the application in in time?
What are the chances that HMRC get this through the Commissioners tribunal route?

If I were PWC client I would be livid!

[Emigre]

For those that attended, did you speak to the Montpelier, PwC, KPMG reps regarding the actions we are taking (writing to MPs, JCHR etc...) to see if they can suggest anything else we could do to help the cause?

These guys are aware of what we have been doing and acknowledge that it is making a difference. We have obtained FOI documents through smaller specific requests that they were unable to obtain through a larger more encompassing request.

Their task is to focus on their specific client(s) in Court. To this end they do not have time to get more involved with the detail of what we are doing. Neither is it appropriate for them to be seen to be doing so.

We received recognition for our achievements and particularly the professional and principled way in which we have gone about it. We have the moral high ground.