BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

is that a good or bad thing

Bad, with a big "B" I would say.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

is that a good or bad thing

In the Gaines-Cooper case, he dismissed the appeal as “nothing more than an illegitimate attempt to reargue the facts”.

I don't think we should read too much into this though because we don't know the relative merits of the case.

The Judges in the CoA are far more senior than Justice Parker and hopefully they'll at least assess the case on points of law rather than "social[ist] policy".

[OnYourBikeGB]

In the Gaines-Cooper case, he dismissed the appeal as “nothing more than an illegitimate attempt to reargue the facts”.

I don't think we should read too much into this though because we don't know the relative merits of the case.

The Judges in the CoA are far more senior than Justice Parker and hopefully they'll at least assess the case on points of law rather than "social[ist] policy".

Ok, I'm going to show my ignorance here, and no doubt this has been covered elsewhere, and I can't find it, but what is the differences between their appeal to get their JR and ours (aside from the legal argument being presented)? Why are there three judges involved and why are they more senior?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ok, I'm going to show my ignorance here, and no doubt this has been covered elsewhere, and I can't find it, but what is the differences between their appeal to get their JR and ours (aside from the legal argument being presented)? Why are there three judges involved and why are they more senior?

If you recall, their JR oral application in the High Court got refused due to a timing issue (too late because it was more than 3 months after royal assent; too early because the claimant hadn't received a CN).

They therefore applied to the Court of Appeal. The hearing today is in the Court of Appeal, hence the 3 judges.

I'm told the outcome of this could go one of 4 ways (listed in order of preference):

1) Refuse permission for a full hearing (end of story)
2) Order the case to be heard in the High Court (Judicial Review);
3) Hear the case straight away (today) in the Court of Appeal;
4) Order the case to go straight to the European Court.

PS. I'm told (2) is unlikely.

[OnYourBikeGB]

If you recall, their JR oral application in the High Court got refused due to a timing issue (too late because it was more than 3 months after royal assent; too early because the claimant hadn't received a CN).

They therefore applied to the Court of Appeal. The hearing today is in the Court of Appeal, hence the 3 judges.

I'm told the outcome of this could go one of 4 ways (listed in order of preference):

1) Refuse permission for a full hearing (end of story)
2) Order the case to be heard in the High Court (Judicial Review);
3) Hear the case straight away (today) in the Court of Appeal;
4) Order the case to go straight to the European Court.

PS. I'm told (2) is unlikely.

Ahhh, that makes sense now, I didn't realise they could effectively leapfrog the JR. Thanks DR.

[johnnyguitar]

on the way to work...

this morning and my MP got in the same carriage as me.
I was tempted to sit opposite and wait for him to finish his multiple phones calls but, in the end, didn't:
1. felt it was a bit rude to accost him in a public place

2. more importantly, I'm not what I would be asking him to do ?
I wanted to ask him to stop HMRC being so vindictive & bullying, highligting their recent tendancy towards illegalising 'avoidance' via retrospection.
But, really, what could I reasonably expect him to do ? Wouldn't he just refer me back to the process we are going through ? i.e. appeal, supreme court etc

I'm happy to try talking to him again, but just wanted a viable agenda.
Any suggestions ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ahhh, that makes sense now, I didn't realise they could effectively leapfrog the JR. Thanks DR.

I remember someone commenting at the time that what appeared to be a cock-up might actually be to their advantage.

Of course, if their application is refused today then that's the end of the line and they won't have even got a hearing.

[johnnyguitar]

If you recall, their JR oral application in the High Court got refused due to a timing issue (too late because it was more than 3 months after royal assent; too early because the claimant hadn't received a CN).

They therefore applied to the Court of Appeal. The hearing today is in the Court of Appeal, hence the 3 judges.

I'm told the outcome of this could go one of 4 ways (listed in order of preference):

1) Refuse permission for a full hearing (end of story)
2) Order the case to be heard in the High Court (Judicial Review);
3) Hear the case straight away (today) in the Court of Appeal;
4) Order the case to go straight to the European Court.

PS. I'm told (2) is unlikely.

what is the relation to our track ?
If they get refused an Appeal hearing - does that mean ours can get refused on the same grounds ?
what if they win an appeal hearing ? Does that mean ours can win purely on the back of it ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

what is the relation to our track ?
If they get refused an Appeal hearing - does that mean ours can get refused on the same grounds ?
what if they win an appeal hearing ? Does that mean ours can win purely on the back of it ?

There is no relation. They are challenging the legislation on completely different grounds to us. Whatever happens in their case it has no bearing on ours. (See 1st post of this thread for more details)

[OnYourBikeGB]

There is no relation. They are challenging the legislation on completely different grounds to us. Whatever happens in their case it has no bearing on ours. (See 1st post of this thread for more details)

But if it is heard in the appeal court (or eventually Europe) and they win on their grounds, do we not also win by proxy, irrespective of MPs HR argument? Sorry for the stupid questions, I've just started to think that today might be more important for us than I thought it was.