BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Taura]

Hi DR,

Not sure if it has been discussed already, but can you clear something up for me? I’ve received the “De-Brief” letter from MP about the CoA result and am obviously pleased to see that they are going to appeal. However, there is no mention of Strasbourg, yet on the 1st page of this forum the statement from WG states that:

“As there is every likelihood that one or both cases will go to the supreme court and perhaps Strasbourg the obnoxious retrospective provisions of s58 are still very much up for challenge”

I know that MP have always said they will take this to the highest court in the UK, but this was the 1st mention of a European court that I’d heard they have committed to – which I was very pleased to hear about! Has the original statement/intention been revised or is it an administrative oversight somewhere?

Many thanks.


As an aside, whilst I haven’t read every post on here I can see there is understandably a lot of emotion. For my 2c worth I am still firmly behind MP and back them in their actions, I can’t see any value in trying to settle with Hector and I’m in it until the end, when hopefully justice will be done.

MP have verbally committed to Strasb before now, but their actual written commitment was only to HoL (now SC). One would imagine they'll take stock after the SC and decide from there.

I'm in it as far as it goes. No ******* way are HMRC getting their hands on my cash, I'd rather spend the lot on lawyers than see those inadequate vermin take it from me.

[SLB]

MP have verbally committed to Strasb before now, but their actual written commitment was only to HoL (now SC). One would imagine they'll take stock after the SC and decide from there.

I'm in it as far as it goes. No ******* way are HMRC getting their hands on my cash, I'd rather spend the lot on lawyers than see those inadequate vermin take it from me.

That is why I wanted it in writing in the "De-Brief" letter. As the old solicitors' saying goes - a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I'm sure they will take stock after the SC, but it is always better to get these things in writing, even though I am perfectly confident MP will take it to Europe if necessary.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg)

Whilst it is still possible to take a case to Strasbourg, it is much harder since the creation of the UK Supreme Court.

Strasbourg would need a hell of a lot of convincing as to why they should hear a case that had been rejected by the SC.

Personally, I'm not counting on our case going to Europe.

However, it is possible PwC's case could be referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

[SLB]

Whilst it is still possible to take a case to Strasbourg, it is much harder since the creation of the UK Supreme Court.

Strasbourg would need a hell of a lot of convincing as to why they should hear a case that had been rejected by the SC.

Personally, I'm not counting on our case going to Europe.

However, it is possible PwC's case could be referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Thanks DR.

Of course the next question is: Would hector suspend collection if we lost at the SC, but PWC (or any of the others) were able to go to Europe and we weren't? We can leave that for now though. . .

[OnYourBikeGB]

Nice to see Hector getting a bit of a kicking too, this week:

BBC News - HMRC service standards lambasted by MPs

Pity the same MPs that are making the noise won't have the balls to do anything about it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks DR.

Of course the next question is: Would hector suspend collection if we lost at the SC, but PWC (or any of the others) were able to go to Europe and we weren't? We can leave that for now though. . .

If the PwC case was referred to the ECJ then definitely YES.

You can't apply directly to the ECJ, it has to be referred by a UK court. The UK case would be parked, pending a decision of the ECJ.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have been reflecting on the past week. Not so much the court ruling itself but people's reactions.

I think the problem is we have a lot of different agendas.

1) There are people, like myself, who can afford to settle but would rather take their chances on further legal action.

2) Others would prefer to get it over with now, and move on with their lives, but only if a deal could be struck.

3) Many can't afford to settle even if HMRC agreed to accepting less than the full amount. They would lose their homes and face possible bankruptcy.

Have I missed anyone?

[reckless]

Categories

I have been reflecting on the past week. Not so much the court ruling itself but people's reactions.

I think the problem is we have a lot of different agendas.

1) There are people, like myself, who can afford to settle but would rather take their chances on further legal action.

2) Others would prefer to get it over with now, and move on with their lives, but only if a deal could be struck.

3) Many can't afford to settle even if HMRC agreed to accepting less than the full amount. They would lose their homes and face possible bankruptcy.

Have I missed anyone?

I think that is it in a nutshell DR.

[Fred Bloggs]

4) Those who come onto the forum to tell us all about this fantastic fully compliant, IR35 proof, HMRC approved scheme that promises them a minimum take home pay of 85% of invoice value with no risk.

[Taura]

I think that is it in a nutshell DR.

4: Those of us who could afford to settle but would rather snort the entire lot than see it in the grubby mitts of HMRC