BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I do hope Santa was mentioned. I want my place in the history books, or court transcript at least

Not as I recall. Some of my posts were read out but I was well pissed that they pre-dated the Donkey avatar. I'd love to have seen the expression on the Judge's face if he read what was scrawled on the purple coat.

I was also disappointed that Singh didn't read out our usernames. He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

I was prepared, in the style of Jones, to stand up like a nutter and proclaim "I'm DonkeyRhubarb".

[ContractIn]

Not as I recall. Some of my posts were read out but I was well pissed that they pre-dated the Donkey avatar. I'd love to have seen the expression on the Judge's face if he read what was scrawled on the purple coat.

I was also disappointed that Singh didn't read out our usernames. He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

I was prepared, in the style of Jones, to stand up like a nutter and proclaim "I'm DonkeyRhubarb".

They used posts from the forum as evidence and then altered it (from its original format). Surely this would make it inadmissable! How do we know they didn't alter other submissions!!

[silver_lining]

One day soon it will become clear that you have been misled by someone and its not me. For example Elvin QC (based on evidence from his witness) said/suggested that Montpelier were NOT aware of the Milne 2001 opinions.

Copies were sent to Montpelier via my Solictors in early 2003. I will produce the letter on this site if anyone can "open their eyes" wide enough.
Did Montpelier had a duty to inform contractors about a dissenting opinion from an emminent tax barrister??..........

Knowledge of Milne opinion can be used anyway one likes....

If it was in the public domain, and given Suo Moto history with HMRC etc.. HMRC must also have known...

and thus this backs up Elvin's closing summary... ie HMRC had an 'opinion', that just MUST be the right one.... or two or maybe three....(has anyone asked Milne recently... probably due a 'it does NOT work opinion'...again).....

So armed with this FACT, HMRC still did nothing to close it down.

Alan, just give it up, its all said and done for now..... its out of your wise hands and ours.

[paulsc]

Thank you

Can I add a belated thank you to all the posters who have described the two days in court. I have just spent the last hour reading them as quick as I could because I should be working (I'm working at home).
I gather the judge has gone of to cogitate on the case and he will take a few weeks before delivering his verdict. Has any indication been made on how long he is likely to take?

[poppy01]

Not as I recall. Some of my posts were read out but I was well pissed that they pre-dated the Donkey avatar. I'd love to have seen the expression on the Judge's face if he read what was scrawled on the purple coat.

I was also disappointed that Singh didn't read out our usernames. He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

I was prepared, in the style of Jones, to stand up like a nutter and proclaim "I'm DonkeyRhubarb".

would have been even better if your name was Spartacus. 'I am Spartacus'...'No, I am Spartacus'

[silver_lining]

Thanks for your update DR.

The Judge has agreed that Padmore doesnt apply to our case, so the claim from the Revenue that they were "clarifying" existing law isn't true.

............

I only made the summary on Day 2.

Did the Judge actually say that, did any scribe down exactly his words....? As I really think this is significant regardless.....

[robinhood]

would have been even better if your name was Spartacus. 'I am Spartacus'...'No, I am Spartacus'

Or... I'm Brian and so's my wife !!

[silver_lining]

Not as I recall. Some of my posts were read out but I was well pissed that they pre-dated the Donkey avatar. I'd love to have seen the expression on the Judge's face if he read what was scrawled on the purple coat.

I was also disappointed that Singh didn't read out our usernames. He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

I was prepared, in the style of Jones, to stand up like a nutter and proclaim "I'm DonkeyRhubarb".

I would have paid to see that......

'No I'm Sparticus...'

[DonkeyRhubarb]

They used posts from the forum as evidence and then altered it (from its original format). Surely this would make it inadmissable! How do we know they didn't alter other submissions!!

They didn't alter it. It's just the posts appeared to have been from quite a long time ago before I added the Donkey avatar. The only reason I know this is that Junior Counsel, who was sat in front of me, had the file open while Singh was reading them out.

I have to say the Judge didn't seem particularly impressed. Singh even had to explain to the Judge that he believed the initials "MP" referred to Montpelier.

It was farcical, and it must be a sign of desparation on the part of HMRC that they thought this would support their case.

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

[Slobbo]

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

Brilliant.

Any chance you remember which forum posts they quoted?