BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[OnYourBikeGB]

Well, quite. It seems odd, this is just a hearing to decide whether there is a case to answer or not. If there is the slightest doubt that there might be one, then surely the only answer can be to grant a JR?

I'd read it that before he may have sided with HMRC. The number of cases is making him think twice.

Just in case he's nipped into chambers for a quick look at this forum, I'd like to point out that it's a really nice day, and you could be on the golf course. Better just send it off to court now, and go get the old clubs out.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In him struggling is that good or bad for us? If he cant decide why doesnt he just let it go to court..?

He is struggling to decide whether to defer decision on this one until our's and the others have been heard.

Remember, HMRC are saying that PwC's JR app should be refused on the grounds that they didn't apply in time and that the appellant Shiner hasn't even received a closure notice.

In theory, the Judge should just throw the application out, but clearly he is not mindful to do that.

Incidentally, this is not the same Judge who refused our written application.

[smalldog]

He is struggling to decide whether to defer decision on this one until our's and the others have been heard.

Remember, HMRC are saying that PwC's JR app should be refused on the grounds that they didn't apply in time and that the appellant Shiner hasn't even received a closure notice.

In theory, the Judge should just throw the application out, but clearly he is not mindful to do that.

Incidentally, this is not the same Judge who refused our written application.

Thats positive so following that thought process we were in time so get the JR..

[NO TO RETRO]

Thats positive so following that thought process we were in time so get the JR..

I don't quite understand what not having a Closure Notice has got to do with it. Isn't that just a matter of time and HMRC ineptitude? I haven't got mine yet but I know that HMRC want the money on the grounds of s58.

[OnYourBikeGB]

He is struggling to decide whether to defer decision on this one until our's and the others have been heard.

Remember, HMRC are saying that PwC's JR app should be refused on the grounds that they didn't apply in time and that the appellant Shiner hasn't even received a closure notice.

In theory, the Judge should just throw the application out, but clearly he is not mindful to do that.

Incidentally, this is not the same Judge who refused our written application.

Is there a possibility that if the judge allows this to go forward now, bearing in mind that there may be a technical breach, that HMRC could throw a spanner in the works later on by appealing the decision to award the review?

[srhcompcon]

Lack of Closure Notice

I have not had any closure notices yet and have been with MP from the start. They definitely want some money off me though as they have made obvious in the many letters I have received over the years.

[KiwiGuy]

Is there a possibility that if the judge allows this to go forward now, bearing in mind that there may be a technical breach, that HMRC could throw a spanner in the works later on by appealing the decision to award the review?

im thinking the Judge is thinking well if 4 sets of lawyers who are probably alot more skilled in the dodgy HMRC "No win Ir35" Lawyers are saying this needs a JR then i probably needs JR and the HMRC needs a good for wasting everyones time once again

[DonkeyRhubarb]

!!!! PwC hearing update !!!

The Judge has given his ruling, and there's good news and bad news.

PwC's application was based on several points, not just the HRA incompatibility

Bad News

• The Judge refused the application on the grounds that it was late. PwC gave a lame argument for it being late, saying that it took time to get their "class action" up and running. The Judge dismissed this.

Good News

• The application was refused on silly technicalities, not on the substance of the claim.
• Even then, the Judge has not rejected the application outright. He has deferred a decision on the HRA incompatibility element of PwC's application until after the Montpelier hearing.
• The Judge also suggested to PwC Counsel that they could take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
• A legal representative acting for Montpelier was present at the hearing, and they indicated that it had been very useful. It is clear that HMRC's objective is to stop this getting near a courtroom, and Montpelier are now in a better position to counter this at our hearing.

Overall, I think we should regard this as mostly positive. One of the guys who attended the hearing will expand on this in a post in the next day or so.

[deckster]

The Judge has given his ruling, and there's good news and bad news.

PwC's application was based on several points, not just the HRA incompatibility

Bad News

• The Judge refused the application on the grounds that it was late. PwC gave a lame argument for it being late, saying that it took time to get their "class action" up and running. The Judge dismissed this.

Good News

• The application was refused on silly technicalities, not on the substance of the claim.
• Even then, the Judge has not rejected the application outright. He has deferred a decision on the HRA incompatibility element of PwC's application until after the Montpelier hearing.
• The Judge also suggested to PwC Counsel that they could take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
• A legal representative acting for Montpelier was present at the hearing, and they indicated that it had been very useful. It is clear that HMRC's objective is to stop this getting near a courtroom, and Montpelier are now in a better position to counter this at our hearing.

Overall, I think we should regard this as mostly positive. One of the guys who attended the hearing will expand on this in a post in the next day or so.

Thanks for the update, and for attending! I agree, this is not a bad result at all. The judge clearly feels that there is something more to this than HMRC have admitted and although his hands are somewhat tied by the late submission of PWCs application he has left the door wide open for us to knock HMRC out in a couple of weeks.

[smalldog]

The Judge has given his ruling, and there's good news and bad news.

PwC's application was based on several points, not just the HRA incompatibility

Bad News

• The Judge refused the application on the grounds that it was late. PwC gave a lame argument for it being late, saying that it took time to get their "class action" up and running. The Judge dismissed this.

Good News

• The application was refused on silly technicalities, not on the substance of the claim.
• Even then, the Judge has not rejected the application outright. He has deferred a decision on the HRA incompatibility element of PwC's application until after the Montpelier hearing.
• The Judge also suggested to PwC Counsel that they could take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
• A legal representative acting for Montpelier was present at the hearing, and they indicated that it had been very useful. It is clear that HMRC's objective is to stop this getting near a courtroom, and Montpelier are now in a better position to counter this at our hearing.

Overall, I think we should regard this as mostly positive. One of the guys who attended the hearing will expand on this in a post in the next day or so.

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!!!!!