BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

Hi all,

The case has finished and Seadog has kindly phoned in an update:

David Elvin put forward his rebuttal this afternoon. He again drove home that HMRC had very weak grounds regarding the validity of the scheme and wouldn't have left it till 2008 to do something.

As a consequence, the fair and proportionate response might have applied after a very short period of time, but certainly not after 7 years.

Our QC also countered Singh's arguments about the will of parliament and that the Revenue's action was disproportionate.

As we all suspected, HMRC have been monitoring this blog and tried to substantiate their case from 4 or 5 posts on here. Elvin also countered this.

The judgement will be several weeks away and we are led to believe whichever side loses will appeal.

As a side note, Alan Jones made a formal application for disclosure of papers from our case to assist him in his appeal against a seperate case between himself and Montpelier. The Judge heard arguments on both sides and requested both parties try to settle the matter before it is brought back to court.

Thats it for now.

Many thanks to everyone who has helped, DonkeyRhubarb and all the other people who turned up at the court, yourselves, and the Montpelier legal team.

Best of luck to us all!

[ContractIn]

Hi all,

The case has finished and Seadog has kindly phoned in an update:

David Elvin put forward his rebuttal this afternoon. He again drove home that HMRC had very weak grounds regarding the validity of the scheme and wouldn't have left it till 2008 to do something.

As a consequence, the fair and proportionate response might have applied after a very short period of time, but certainly not after 7 years.

Our QC also countered Singh's arguments about the will of parliament and that the Revenue's action was disproportionate.

As we all suspected, HMRC have been monitoring this blog and tried to substantiate their case from 4 or 5 posts on here. Elvin also countered this.

The judgement will be several weeks away and we are led to believe whichever side loses will appeal.

As a side note, Alan Jones made a formal application for disclosure of papers from our case to assist him in his appeal against a seperate case between himself and Montpelier. The Judge heard arguments on both sides and requested both parties try to settle the matter before it is brought back to court.
Thats it for now.

Many thanks to everyone who has helped, DonkeyRhubarb and all the other people who turned up at the court, yourselves, and the Montpelier legal team.

Best of luck to us all!

Cheers for update.

What does "settle the matter" insinuate, that a deal is done?

[smalldog]

I attended the JR for the whole of Day 1 yesterday and I recognised Jones from when I first went to the IoM and joined MTM back in 2001...I have been in email contact with him occassionally since he first joined the forum...

as a result i had a short conversation with him yesterday during lunch and i asked him the reason why he was there and what he was trying to achieve by being in attendance...the reasons he gave me seemed plausible at the time (though i wont divulge them here)...

however if what i am hearing today that he is passing notes to HMRCs legal team then that concerns me a great deal and goes against what he told me yesterday...

I dont like the guy for what he has done in the past but right now can we please stop abusing the guy...there are a lot of people watching this case and reading the forum...and it doesnt help our cause...

what difference does it make what we say about who??

[Toocan]

Alan Jones again spent time this morning passing notes to the HMRC solicitor. there would be no point doing this for any reason that does not involve our case and he could not be doing it for any reason that could help us.

Hence we can only assume that he was doing it for his own benefit by helping HMRC.

In DR's words "the man needs flaming". So get on with it, do your best.

I’m not sure about this but would it not be the case that if the scheme worked then Alan Jones gave bad advice to his clients. There would be some liability there and it could be that users of his scheme might have a claim on him. Is that why he is passing notes to HMRC’s legal team?

Or the notes may just say, “I’m still here…”

[SantaClaus]

Cheers for update.

What does "settle the matter" insinuate, that a deal is done?

I am speculating it means that the Judge has asked Jones and Montpelier to come to an agreement out of court. However, it's a side-note and has nothing to do with our case.

[ContractIn]

I am speculating it means that Jones and Montpelier come to an agreement out of court. However, it's a side-note and has nothing to do with our case.

OK Cheers. I'm not up for a deal.

[Toocan]

Why would Jones want them?

For his defence perhaps?

[Slobbo]

Only deal I want is make it prospective and be done with it.

[Richard Splash]

what difference does it make what we say about who??

Whilst not wishing to offend - By taking this personal slant it suggests that we are ignorant people because Bi-Polar disorder does not mean that youare man, in some cases it can be quite the oposite and intelligence can shine through quite blindinly. However, I'm sure this man has his reasons for doing what he is doing and moreover inciting such emotive raction. Understanding that we are all under a great deal of pressure a modicum of civility wouldn't go amis.
Aplogies for typo's...I'm in a terrible rush...

[northernSoul]

"and trying to attack us on the lines that the courts do not have the right to interfere with the will of parliament sounds like a bit of a risky fallback"

Alas, it's one of the safest lines of arguments in English law ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_supremacy

The only arguable exception are those lines of law deriving from the ECJ - that falls under the EU Treatuy, not the ECHR.