BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[ContractIn]

And whilst I do not pretend to understand it all, the conclusion I've come to is that we are Royally F**ked. I do not even recall a glimmer of hope being given to our side of the fence. Obviously I am prepared to be enlightened to the contrary but it all looks down hill to me! Use the time we have wisely!

I concur, and as another whammy they took 9 months to tell us

They are all in it together and I can't see how SC will be any different if MP even take it that far.

[Dieselpower]

The statute of limitations kicks in once the loss is known. As the loss is not yet known, or indeed a given, my understanding of the law, means the clock has not yet started ticking.

My understanding is that the 6 years starts from either the date of contract or sometimes the date at which you could have known that there was a problem - either way, both dates have passed, and I am only talking about putting an insurer "on notice" of a claim - which is standard procedure (I do it all the time, unfortunately)

In the event that the defendant conceals information from the claimant such that the claimant does not know of relevant facts giving rise to the cause of action, time will not commence to run on a limitation period until the claimant learns of the relevant fact or should have come to know of the relevant fact, if it could have been discovered by reasonable diligence.

[Cantthinkof1]

Stunned!!

Well, I have finally managed to sign on after remembering my user-id/password! - just shows how long this has dragged on for!
Whilst I agree that we should make no hasty decisions, I can see that if we are not careful, then the interest charges are just going to spiral out of control! - how anyone can justify that it is fair to accrue interest during an investigation totally baffles me, especially during the long deliberation by the 3 CoA judges!!
Now on the other hand, I can also see that when justice is not being done the only way is to fight your case...
As the title suggests I am totally stunned by the decision, and even more concernd that there appears to be little hope for us in the summing up...
Just my initail thoughts! ... sorry for not being optimistic!!

[Taura]

I concur, and as another whammy they took 9 months to tell us

They are all in it together and I can't see how SC will be any different if MP even take it that far.

MP will take it that far or they'll have legal issues from clients, because I have a letter from them stating they'll go to the HoL. Granted the HoL is gone but the SC is an analogue, I don't think they could wheedle out of it. It's my personal view that as MP have come this far they will go to SC.

[sjw]

The statute of limitations kicks in once the loss is known. As the loss is not yet known, or indeed a given, my understanding of the law says this means the clock has not yet started ticking for action against the provider. IF there is indeed a case for them to answer. Certainly when I joined the scheme in 2004 they told me it was watertight, so IF HMRC had stated otherwise to them by that point, or people were already under investigation, they would have a case to answer.

And that is an 'IF'.

I presume we can use the freedom of information act to confirm

[screwthis]

Can anyone help me to understand an aspect of the judgement relating to Mr Huitson's employment status?

Paragraph 11 explains that Mr Huitson was self-employed. However, it also states that he would have been caught by IR35, and could not have obtained any tax advantage by supplying his services through an intermediary company.

Eh?

The opposite is normally true. If the activity passes self-employment tests, it is outside IR35's scope. If not, you are an employee for this activity, and you are caught by IR35.

What gives?

Agreed.
Is there an opportunity to argue not being caught by IR35?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I presume we can use the freedom of information act to confirm

Welcome to the few new posters today... Might have been useful having your insight a while back

[Dieselpower]

Welcome to the few new posters today... Might have been useful having your insight a while back

Yes I know - but things have stepped up a gear now - I am no longer lurking on this board - I have a huge amount here at stake, and today's judgement - which I have read - doesn't appear to leave many doors even remotely ajar. However, Emigre quite rightly pointed out that with respect to the learned judges, overturning a Parliamentary decision is a ballsy thing to do, and possibly best left to SC in due course.

[Taura]

My understanding is that the 6 years starts from either the date of contract or sometimes the date at which you could have known that there was a problem - either way, both dates have passed, and I am only talking about putting an insurer "on notice" of a claim - which is standard procedure (I do it all the time, unfortunately)

In the event that the defendant conceals information from the claimant such that the claimant does not know of relevant facts giving rise to the cause of action, time will not commence to run on a limitation period until the claimant learns of the relevant fact or should have come to know of the relevant fact, if it could have been discovered by reasonable diligence.

But the plaintiff must have knowledge of the material facts of the damages when the clock starts. As no one knows that until the HMRC case is lost and de-facto demands are sent out, that is not yet known. No one actually knows how much money they owe (the damage) and also, no one yet knows there is damage. The case could be won at the SC and there would be no damage.

Our case needs to be lost and the actual damage of the loss needs to be known and the plaintiff needs to have a right to bring such an action. Because MontP are fighting and we have not yet suffered a loss, we have no right to bring action yet. If we lose, or they stop fighting, we then have three years under limitation to bring action. Right?

The absolute maximum limitation is 15 years for negligence not involving personal injury. One assumes any cases against MontP would be of the variety of negligence.

However, they are still fighting for us, so we have not suffered any damage yet. So what would a case look like right now? Empty.

[sjw]

Yes I know - but things have stepped up a gear now - I am no longer lurking on this board - I have a huge amount here at stake, and today's judgement - which I have read - doesn't appear to leave many doors even remotely ajar. However, Emigre quite rightly pointed out that with respect to the learned judges, overturning a Parliamentary decision is a ballsy thing to do, and possibly best left to SC in due course.

with respect - we're supposed to put our lives on hold again?? no fear.