BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

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)

Thanks for the update DR. Pity the cases can be lumped together. I would rather see Singh squirming twice.

[Emigre]

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)

There's a pattern emerging here. Parker in the application had time for our point of view and then ignored it at the full hearing.

Also, the summary as posted suggests their Lordships expect a hearing to go ahead. The deferral and the bringing of the case back together perhaps takes us to where we should have been from the start.

I assume that the CoA will try and fast track our case if the case load starts to build in this area.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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 ?

Don't know. However, I can see it from the Court's perspective that it's an inefficient use of court resources having 2 cases running in parallel challenging the same matter.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Also, the summary as posted suggests their Lordships expect a hearing to go ahead. The deferral and the bringing of the case back together perhaps takes us to where we should have been from the start.

That is the impression I got.

The Lordships were not impressed (in fact dismissive) of HMRC's lame attempt to stop the proceedings going ahead.

I suspect if our case had not been in the pipeline, then a full hearing would have gone ahead there and then.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Thanks for the update DR. Pity the cases can be lumped together. I would rather see Singh squirming twice.

Taking comfort from what we can, HMRC seem to be a little bit uneasy in front of 3 judges, not too well prepared at all. Smacks of overconfidence, or weakness possibly. Not a result, of any kind, except they were unable to shut the door. A very minor victory, perhaps, but its still a plus to us.

[Slobbo]

Does this mean that should our arguments fail to win the day then the PwC approach from the Freedom of Movement perspective can then challenge the legislation?

[SantaClaus]

Taking comfort from what we can, HMRC seem to be a little bit uneasy in front of 3 judges, not too well prepared at all. Smacks of overconfidence, or weakness possibly. Not a result, of any kind, except they were unable to shut the door. A very minor victory, perhaps, but its still a plus to us.

Yep, the equivalent of a Lotto scratchcard. Now lets go for the big prize.

[portseven]

Will be interesting to see what angle E&Y are taking against this. If they find yet another angle, then that will be lines of 3 attack.

In some ways it would have been nice to see it defeated today, though can understand the Judges logic. By knocking it together with our case, does that show that they have any sympathy with Mr Parkers judgement?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Does this mean that should our arguments fail to win the day then the PwC approach from the Freedom of Movement perspective can then challenge the legislation?

Possibly. The two scenarios are:

1) Our application to the Court of Appeal is accepted
Then it is likely that both cases will be heard together in the Court of Appeal.

2) Our application is rejected
Then the 3 Judges who heard the appeal today will decide if the PwC case can proceed.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

By knocking it together with our case, does that show that they have any sympathy with Mr Parkers judgement?

Parker's judgment wasn't mentioned at all today.