BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[TAF4]

Jr

The judge agreed with counsel that Padmore should have been the first option in 2001. If Padmore worked then, why delay 7 years? The judge gets it. Now wait for IR response.

[johnnyguitar]

very positive

the judge clearly has a good understanding of the issues and came across as a very fair person.
Receptive to our submissions and seemed to imply that he didn't beleive Padmore, in it's 'original wording' applied to us.
It was made very clear to him that HMRC, whilst claiming they didn't think our scheme worked, made no explanation as to how it didn't work.
Their 'Padmore' argument was made some 6-7 years in and if they thought they had a case earlier they would/should have take it to litigation.

Anyway, a very good morning I think, despite some interesting developments with a certain Mr Jones, which I will leave for now as I don't want to jeapordize anything.

Pity I can't sit in this afternoon, but I can't see HMRC winning this one.

[Plonker]

What are the 'proceedings' for this hearing?

Ie MTM defence, followed by HMRC.

Does MTM get a chance to reply to the HMRC statements etc?

[silver_lining]

keep them coming.....

Its killing me I cant get out of the office !!!

Keep the updates coming, very uplifting....

I want to hear more about this AJ reference ???? good, bad indifferent

Would like to hear a summary face to face, are ye all planning on meeting somewhere afterwards ?

[Douglas]

Very happy so far

I was in court this morning and am very happy with the presentation of our case so far. There was a good run through of the timeline of Huitson's case contrasted with HMRC's internal and external communications indicating that they knew exactly how the scheme worked from 2001 and were aware that the law couldn't defeat it.

I was pleased to see our guy mention hardship and to note the judge scanning the audience at that point. The judge certainly seems to get it and asked helpful questions.

[Slobbo]

Wish I was there. Sitting here waiting is hell. Can't concentrate on my work. Snapped at the wife on the phone. I can't wait till this is over.

[smalldog]

im like a hen on hot bricks and strangely excited??!!! Guess Im looking forwards to some sort of conclusion, years and years of unknown, certainty is better than not knowing..

[Lazylobster]

It's a positive start chaps, but it's not over yet. I'll only be happy when the Judgment is made and this is some time off.

So, lets not get ahead of ourselves, still some way to go yet

Keep the faith

LL

[nuffsaid]

I was there this morning and it was very, very interesting.
Our defense was very clear and concise and did a fantastic job. The Judge was sharp and on the ball and even seemed to agree with our QC!

I've come away feeling great! Shame I can't make it to this afternoon.

[travellingknob]

It's a positive start chaps, but it's not over yet. I'll only be happy when the Judgment is made and this is some time off.

So, lets not get ahead of ourselves, still some way to go yet

Keep the faith

LL

Well said.

Remember the Judge is making a decision on the law and how it applies to our case not some emotive issue. The fact that he is grasping the issues only goes to give us confidence that he will make a fair and reasoned judgement. It does not not mean he will agree with our viewpoint.

So far no-one has reported back on the human rights issue associated with retrospective legislation which I believe is what he's supposed to make the judgement upon.