Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[webberg]

Graham isn't spending his money, he is spending the money of others on their behalf. If he doesn't think the appeal will work for those members that's up to him.

By the sounds of the posts Graham made though I don't think he sees eye to eye with the lawyers working on this case.

You are correct that it's not my money and without a mandate from my clients, I cannot commit.

I have no issues with the lawyers.

Some of the thoughts expressed above we have discussed with our own legal team in the past and they take a different view. That legal team is presently unavailable to us (they are in Court on another case). Once they are available and we are able to brief them and have a discussion, we will be in a better position to consider the next steps.

[Saleos]

Graham isn't spending his money, he is spending the money of others on their behalf. If he doesn't think the appeal will work for those members that's up to him.

By the sounds of the posts Graham made though I don't think he sees eye to eye with the lawyers working on this case.

I am afraid that you're mistaken about whose money it is. Those who paid £1,800 plus VAT plus £15 pcm paid fees (hence the VAT). That is income of WTT. If it isn't spent, who keeps it? WTT. Is that an incentive for it to be spent?

It is indisputable that the issues in Hoey are highly relevant to the Big Group resolution strategy for post DR loans. And of course it is hard to have any influence over the arguments presented until you make any contribution to the costs of those presenting them. If that changes, the opportunity to contribute to the legal arguments changes with it.

Those involved in actual cases (Hoey, Higgs & Lancashire) have already cooperated & exchanged views/arguments. Those not yet involved in an actual case, haven't.

[luxCon]

Graham isn't spending his money, he is spending the money of others on their behalf. If he doesn't think the appeal will work for those members that's up to him.

With all due respect Graham is not a lawyer, and since 2015 subs been collected, and joining fees as much as £1,500+vat paid into what individuals believed to be a club to fight and mitigate exactly whats described above, see this ;

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...big-group.html

Those members who I believe to be in at least 3,000 to 3,500 individuals, most of whom got involved with Big Group/WTT through this forum have a right to question whats going on and why promises were made and paid for are not being even actioned.

Graham is very good at hiding behind secrecy, I remember him telling me I must pay £1,500+ VAT upfront before he even tells me what his new LC challenge strategy was, as its a big secret only available to paid-up members. We all know that WTT delivered nothing for the fees paid by members to challenge LC.

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2497183

What Saleos has described above is a million miles ahead of what WTT and Big Group have achieved for their clients.

It is time those clients wake up and realise they were recruited in to a cult.

Either redirect their future subs in to something solid that has shown to provide results, or pressure their cult leaders to support the case thats way ahead of their ability.

[DealorNoDeal]

What stage is the WTT/BG case at? Presumably it can't be long before it's heard at the FTT?

[Superfly]

I understand there is uncertainty and scepticism about this, indeed me, so let me try, below, to be as clear and concise as possible about what "we" are looking to do and why. And most importantly why it could help many many more than just Mr Hoey.

Why is this important?


This litigation deals with PRE DR loans. Those received before 9 Dec 2010.

IF Mr Hoey wins HMRC would be unable to collect income tax from recipients of similar schemes (e.g. ASMG, ASIOM, Edge, GreebBay, AML (early years) Sanzar and so on - any employment based EBT loan scheme) using the PAYE code. HMRC can do so now only by exercising a claimed discretion under s684(7A) ITEPA 2003 (to remove a credit for the PAYE that ought to have been deducted by the employer/agency/end user (it matters not which)).

Further, the Transfer of Assets Abroad provisions (which would allow HMRC to collect tax directly from individuals without resorting to 'earnings' arguments) would not apply where the income of the person abroad is nil (as was held by the FTT in Hoey).

...

Hoey is the only case to have reached the Upper Tribunal. Once that decision is released it will bind the FTT on points of law. That will tie the hands of those cases yet to start.

If Mr Hoey cannot afford legal representation (and he cannot without your help) HMRC would have an unopposed run at the Court of Appeal - only one side would be present to give their arguments - whichever side appeals.

Mr Hoey is not wealthy - he is a contractor like you, who will lose his home if he loses this case. He needs your help. If you have pre DR loans, you need your help! I am trying to help but need your support. Please share https://gf.me/u/y8isx5

Thank you for reading.

Thanks for the sterling work you guys are doing Saleos.

Wish I hadn't settled with HMRC now and rather paid the APN, I would have stood a chance of getting it back.

[Saleos]

What stage is the WTT/BG case at? Presumably it can't be long before it's heard at the FTT?

WebberG will be better placed to answer that. But in their group update in Feb 2019 they said “We would expect to be heading for a substantive hearing in early to mid-2020” and in that of April 2019 “ The anticipation is still that we will not have a substantive hearing until Q1 2020”.

Since those updates Hoey has been in the FTT, received their decision, appealed, had that heard by the UT and is almost certain to get a decision from them before the WTT/BG case is heard by the FTT.

We now near the end of Q4 without any publicised date for the WTT/BG hearing. A hearing at a Tribunal that will be bound by the decision of the UT in Hoey on the same points of law (s684(7A), PAYE Credit, ToAA).

[DealorNoDeal]

WebberG will be better placed to answer that. But in their group update in Feb 2019 they said “We would expect to be heading for a substantive hearing in early to mid-2020” and in that of April 2019 “ The anticipation is still that we will not have a substantive hearing until Q1 2020”.

Since those updates Hoey has been in the FTT, received their decision, appealed, had that heard by the UT and is almost certain to get a decision from them before the WTT/BG case is heard by the FTT.

We now near the end of Q4 without any publicised date for the WTT/BG hearing. A hearing at a Tribunal that will be bound by the decision of the UT in Hoey on the same points of law (s684(7A), PAYE Credit, ToAA).

Which begs the question...

What would be the point of WTT/BG even taking a case to the FTT now?

Wouldn't they need to have a substantially different argument to Hoey?

[Saleos]

Which begs the question...

What would be the point of WTT/BG even taking a case to the FTT now?

Wouldn't they need to have a substantially different argument to Hoey?

A decision from the UT on the application of a point of law is binding on the FTT unless the facts can be distinguished. So HOW it is argued doesn’t matter.

[luxCon]

PPI type mis-selling

Which begs the question...

What would be the point of WTT/BG even taking a case to the FTT now?

Wouldn't they need to have a substantially different argument to Hoey?

*** EXACTLY THAT ***

WTT/BG clients need to ask serious questions about what they've been paying for and if there is a case to reclaim and divert their subs towards something that could actually help them rather than the balance sheet of the firm.


This is rather like PPI mis-selling , and requires PPI type claims action now

[DealorNoDeal]

WTT/BG clients need to ask serious questions about what they've been paying for and if there is a case to reclaim and divert their subs towards something that could actually help them rather than the balance sheet of the firm.

Like:

If Hoey loses, where does that leave us?