Being cautious and relieving the stress
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1065107-post751.html
Estimate of accrued interest
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1066442-post800.html
Interest "calculator" provided by Montpelier:
http://www.connected.adsl24.co.uk/Fo...Calculator.xls
The way ahead
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1063961-post703.html
The Judgement
The judgement went against us, and our claim has been dismissed. A copy of the judgement is available here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/97.html
Comment from Montpelier
I have heard from Montpelier who say that a circular letter on the judgment will be issued to all clients by Montpelier on monday.
Montpelier's legal team feel that the judgment is wrong and fails to deal with the human rights points and related case law and are applying immediately for permission to appeal.
HMRC has always said that it will await the outcome of the case before seeking to enforce assessments therefore Montpelier advises clients to forward a copy of any communication from hmrc to montpelier which it will advise on. Pending an appeal the case is not over.
Montpelier also advises that the action by a client of Pricewaterhouse against HMRC that section 58 is in breach of article 56 of the EC convention will be heard in the Court on 9th March and that a separate application by a KPMG client has been made directly to Strasbourg.
The matter is therefore far from settled.
Message from Emigre who was present in Court
I spoke with Matthew Hennessey-Gibbs (solicitor-Hextalls) ahead of the decision who told me that whichever party lost they would apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and that it was normal for the Judge to dismiss that application. This is almost established protocol in that it allows fresh opinion on the case.
The Judge said very little in handing down his judgement.
In the application for appeal he stated that the judgement had been based on broader public and social policy issues and noting the wider ramifications of retrospection was not satisfied that there is a compelling public interest in allowing an appeal. He made clear that we have the right to apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
Outside the Courtroom James Ramsden (junior Counsel) and Matthew kindly spent time explaining to many of us there what the meaning and impact of all of this is. On behalf of all present at the Courts and those tuning in to this site I thank them for that time.
Firstly, they repeated the point made by Matthew earlier about the protocol for appeals.
Secondly, Mr Ramsden (I'd call him JR but that might be confusing) explained the basis on which the Judge had reached his decision. In essence we are at the lowest level of the legal process. This case is about asking the Judge to reach a decision on what is fundamentally a matter of broader public and social policy. That is not his job. His job is to reach a decision on the facts in front of him. His findings with regard to the details of the case, the tax issues, were largely supportive of our position. However, the case is a Human Rights case and a matter of whether or not the Government acted beyond their authority in the context of Article 1 Protocol 1. On this issue the judge needed to reach a decision on the proportionality aspects of S58 FA2008. To make a decsion in our favour would have been a seminal moment in legal history. That is not to say it could not have happened, it might have done, but it didn't.
There is no issue with the Judge who was well received by both sides of the case.
Our Counsel have confirmed that they have received instructions from Watkin Gittins to appeal to the Court of Appeal. They expect that application to be lodged within 14 days, well within the 28 day time limit. it was not confirmed but they expect that application to also request a stay of enforcement of collection by HMRC pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal application.
In terms of timetable:
I also asked the legal team what areas we could work on to help our case at the next stages. they indicated that there are some things that can be done and for obvious reasons I do not propose to post them here. Please do not bombard me with requests. When they have been clarified with the lawyers we will invite help.
It is important to step back from this and to absorb what it means. This was always going to be a long haul and to use an expression that I hate "it is right" that a lone Judge should not be cornered to make a binding decision on an area of the UK's broader public and social policy. It is a long haul, keep the faith.
Emigre
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1065107-post751.html
Estimate of accrued interest
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1066442-post800.html
Interest "calculator" provided by Montpelier:
http://www.connected.adsl24.co.uk/Fo...Calculator.xls
The way ahead
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1063961-post703.html
The Judgement
The judgement went against us, and our claim has been dismissed. A copy of the judgement is available here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/97.html
Comment from Montpelier
I have heard from Montpelier who say that a circular letter on the judgment will be issued to all clients by Montpelier on monday.
Montpelier's legal team feel that the judgment is wrong and fails to deal with the human rights points and related case law and are applying immediately for permission to appeal.
HMRC has always said that it will await the outcome of the case before seeking to enforce assessments therefore Montpelier advises clients to forward a copy of any communication from hmrc to montpelier which it will advise on. Pending an appeal the case is not over.
Montpelier also advises that the action by a client of Pricewaterhouse against HMRC that section 58 is in breach of article 56 of the EC convention will be heard in the Court on 9th March and that a separate application by a KPMG client has been made directly to Strasbourg.
The matter is therefore far from settled.
Message from Emigre who was present in Court
I spoke with Matthew Hennessey-Gibbs (solicitor-Hextalls) ahead of the decision who told me that whichever party lost they would apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and that it was normal for the Judge to dismiss that application. This is almost established protocol in that it allows fresh opinion on the case.
The Judge said very little in handing down his judgement.
In the application for appeal he stated that the judgement had been based on broader public and social policy issues and noting the wider ramifications of retrospection was not satisfied that there is a compelling public interest in allowing an appeal. He made clear that we have the right to apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
Outside the Courtroom James Ramsden (junior Counsel) and Matthew kindly spent time explaining to many of us there what the meaning and impact of all of this is. On behalf of all present at the Courts and those tuning in to this site I thank them for that time.
Firstly, they repeated the point made by Matthew earlier about the protocol for appeals.
Secondly, Mr Ramsden (I'd call him JR but that might be confusing) explained the basis on which the Judge had reached his decision. In essence we are at the lowest level of the legal process. This case is about asking the Judge to reach a decision on what is fundamentally a matter of broader public and social policy. That is not his job. His job is to reach a decision on the facts in front of him. His findings with regard to the details of the case, the tax issues, were largely supportive of our position. However, the case is a Human Rights case and a matter of whether or not the Government acted beyond their authority in the context of Article 1 Protocol 1. On this issue the judge needed to reach a decision on the proportionality aspects of S58 FA2008. To make a decsion in our favour would have been a seminal moment in legal history. That is not to say it could not have happened, it might have done, but it didn't.
There is no issue with the Judge who was well received by both sides of the case.
Our Counsel have confirmed that they have received instructions from Watkin Gittins to appeal to the Court of Appeal. They expect that application to be lodged within 14 days, well within the 28 day time limit. it was not confirmed but they expect that application to also request a stay of enforcement of collection by HMRC pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal application.
In terms of timetable:
- 14 days to make a written application for appeal;
- A further 4 to 6 weeks for that application to be decided;
- If rejected, quite normal, an oral submission will follow;
- Once accepted the Court of Appeal Hearing could be as soon as November 2010. The CoA would need to appoint 3 senior and experienced Lord Justices for the Hearing which takes longer to organise.
- The Court of Appeal could in its application refer the case directly to the Supreme Court which would take significantly longer.
I also asked the legal team what areas we could work on to help our case at the next stages. they indicated that there are some things that can be done and for obvious reasons I do not propose to post them here. Please do not bombard me with requests. When they have been clarified with the lawyers we will invite help.
It is important to step back from this and to absorb what it means. This was always going to be a long haul and to use an expression that I hate "it is right" that a lone Judge should not be cornered to make a binding decision on an area of the UK's broader public and social policy. It is a long haul, keep the faith.
Emigre
Comment