BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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.

Indeed. It only takes one case to be won for us all to win. Therefore, the more parties that join the fight the better, especially if they attack s58 from different angles.

[SantaClaus]

I got this image of an army of David's all with their slingshots aiming at Goliath.

Goliath will be defeated!

[johnnyguitar]

I got this image of an army of David's all with their slingshots aiming at Goliath.

Goliath will be defeated!

I know which bit I'm aiming at...

[PlaneSailing]

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.

That's lunchtime done then. Has anyone gone to the court today,
or are we waiting for news from their legal team?

[KiwiGuy]

That's lunchtime done then. Has anyone gone to the court today,
or are we waiting for news from their legal team?

yeah i wondering the same

[smalldog]

bless em

ahh poor things....maybe the staff morale is low as they dont like the policies they are being told to enforce...people dont like working for unethical firms, HMRC are no different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8557647.stm

http://www.accountancyage.com/accoun...-threatens-tax

[SantaClaus]

ahh poor things....maybe the staff morale is low as they dont like the policies they are being told to enforce...people dont like working for unethical firms, HMRC are no different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8557647.stm

http://www.accountancyage.com/accoun...-threatens-tax

Just read the article. A jolly good read if you are feeling a bit sadistic

[smalldog]

think this one is the best, its totally scathing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...oms-low-morale

Also suggest there wont be enough drive or staff to implement some of their policies, lets hope ours is one of them!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PwC Outcome

This was conveyed to me by someone who was present.

Summary
The three Judges decided to defer a decision on whether the case should go ahead until after the Montpelier application to the CoA has been decided. They feel that the two cases should be brought together from a "case management" point of view.

Highlights

• HMRC turned up mob handed as usual
• Singh was the lead QC again but they also had 2 other barristers
• Singh tried to argue that there was no case to answer because the claimant had not received a formal tax demand but the Judges were having none of it
• Singh was very uncomfortable throughout, and at times stuttering and squirming. He couldn't answer a lot of the Judge's questions, even after conferring with HMRC on a number of occasions
• The Judges were very positive towards PwC's case (although we've seen this before)

[johnnyguitar]

This was conveyed to me by someone who was present.

Summary
The three Judges decided to defer a decision on whether the case should go ahead until after the Montpelier application to the CoA has been decided. They feel that the two cases should be brought together from a "case management" point of view.

Highlights

• HMRC turned up mob handed as usual
• Singh was the lead QC again but they also had 2 other barristers
• Singh tried to argue that there was no case to answer because the claimant had not received a formal tax demand but the Judges were having none of it
• Singh was very uncomfortable throughout, and at times stuttering and squirming. He couldn't answer a lot of the Judge's questions, even after conferring with HMRC on a number of occasions
• The Judges were very positive towards PwC's case (although we've seen this before)

But I thought (please correct me if I'm wrong) that our/an appeal cannot introduce new evidence or arguments - so if the two cases rasing different points of attack, how can they be merged ?