BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Mojito]

Parker was out of his depth

My view - which also be naïve - was that Parker realised that this call was above his pay-grade so hurried out a judgement that was ill-considered and contradictory, essentially creating a gilt-edged appeal opportunity for you guys.

Its interesting that the current verdict is taking so long. I can't see how the actions of HMRC can ever be considered to have been lawful in how they put this legislation into effect, but thats not what's being considered here. Its whether your HR were contravened as a result; possibly thats not such an open & shut case under the current law.

[zippo]

Lib dems take a kicking

I wonder how many other U turns they made as well as the BN66 one for the public to turn against them.

BBC News - Vote 2011: Lib Dems suffer heavy losses in local polls

[Morlock]

IANAL but I cannot see how they could possibly pass down a judgement that would have no bearing on future cases - at the very least a precedent would be set and could therefore be referred to in any future deliberations regarding tax avoidance. If they were to make an example in this case the same reasoning could and presumably would be applied in future cases; if this was made impossible then I would have thought you would have instant grounds for appeal.

I think the judges know that they'll be setting a precedent which will effectively become common law, so they'll want to choose their words carefully. I'm guessing that the judgement will boil down to answering two questions:
1) in a human rights context what are the circumstances where retrospective application of the law is justified?
2) do that context and those circumstances apply to the case in question?
It's the first of these questions that's the most complex, and is probably the reason why the judgement is taking so long to prepare.

[OnYourBikeGB]

The way I am interpreting it (and I may be extremely naive) is that if they were to find in favour of HMRC, as did parker, then judgement would have been delivered by now.

Why would they have to worry about this being set in precedent? Didn't parker do this? (again I could be naive)

I hope so too, though I have wondered if the judges discuss the case informally first. This was referred to in that documentary on the supreme court. They get a feel for consensus over lunch. Is that what led to the before Christmas statement? If so, what gummed up the works. Was it possibly the European directive about free movement of capital? Anyway, whatever it is, it's complex, and complexity is our friend, I think.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Parker took 6 days to deliver his judgment.

The appeal judges have already had 6 months.

So, something must be different.

[SantaClaus]

I wonder how many other U turns they made as well as the BN66 one for the public to turn against them.

BBC News - Vote 2011: Lib Dems suffer heavy losses in local polls

I remember speaking to Vince Cable on the steps of the High Court just before the hearing and receiving a very non-committal answer from him.

Very happy that the local elections and the overwhelming No to AV are the beginning of the end for the Liberals

[centurian]

This was referred to in that documentary on the supreme court. They get a feel for consensus over lunch.

I think you're right. I think judges get a strong indication for the result before the hearing is over. They then have to do legal research to justify their gut feeling and also due-diligence - to make sure they haven't missed anything in law. I suspect they knew before Christmas what the result was going to be. They're dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Could the problem be one of sheer scheduling. Presumably these 3 judges need to get their heads together at various points to debate the differences. If they can only get together for a few hours each month - and at each meeting, there are still t's left uncrossed - that basically defers it for another month.

So while 6 months sounds like a long time, compared to Parker, the actual time of hard consideration might be about the same.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So while 6 months sounds like a long time...

Trust me, it is a long time.

The vast majority (90 odd%) of cases in the Court of Appeal are decided within a month to 6 weeks.

3 months is unusual.

6 months is exceptional.

Only in the most exceptional of cases, does it take 9 months or over. I have a feeling our's is going to be one of these.

[centurian]

I accept that, but in most cases, it might be possible to resolve differences within a few iterations, so meeting up once per month may be sufficient.

Clearly this is more complicated so they are spending more time on it, but 6 months doesn't automatically mean they're spending lots more time on it - it just as conceivable that they can't get enough 'quality time' to hammer out the differences.

Think of it like the many projects we've all worked upon. How many times have we seen an item stubbornly remain 'in progress' - not because it's too difficult, but because the main people can't get together for long enough to sort it out. Once the PM flips and decides to lock the stakeholders in a room together, it usually gets resolves quickly.

All this is pure speculation - but the point is that calendar time doesn't always correlate to working time.

[OnYourBikeGB]

All this is pure speculation - but the point is that calendar time doesn't always correlate to working time.

True, but then it was (we think), their estimate, not ours, that we'd hear before Christmas. And they should know their own schedules. I'm taking the delay as a positive thing, but who knows other than them?

On a slightly different note, I see the slimy, two-faced, incompetent hypocrite Vince Cable has called the Tories ruthless and calculating. Must feel terrible when you think you can rely on someone and then they shaft you, eh Vince?