Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[dammit chloe]

Have they a winning hand? So why haven't they used it?? They've been going for ages (and collecting monthly subs all the while)

You need to look for the sarcasm sometimes.

[DealorNoDeal]

I know for a definite fact that it [the ace up the sleeve] does exist but I can't see WTT sharing it when someone else could fluff it or take all the glory.

If Hoey succeeds, great.

If Hoey fails, BG will be perfectly fine.

Perhaps WebberG could comment on these bold statements?

[Invisiblehand]

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).

And still those sweet fees keep rolling in...

[luxCon]

Perhaps WebberG could comment on these bold statements?

Dont expect any meaningful comment as the rest of us clearly not cleaver enough to understand whats going on and should just hang in there, be kept in the dark and pay the fees to the professionals who will sort it out.

But the reality is I've been reading through these forums since 2015, when the first HMRC enquiry and then APN demands arrived, followed by the LC drama.

My take of reading almost every single post on this forum became clear to me that the BigGroup was not going to deliver what I expected and it was developing in to some sort of a cult, very much similar to those weird religious groups adoring their guru who will save desperate members them from the doom.

I couldn't understand how AML could launch a JR against HMRC in a short period , albite unsuccessful , and later LCAG's JR , yet BG had nothing to show for itself.

It is a sad irony that the members had to pay 20% vat on top of their fees to HMRC, so that they can be defended against HMRC for the money they dont owe it!!

The Hoey case seems to be the only game in town, and there are 10s of thousands who will benefit from it. If you can afford £10, pay £10, if you can afford more pay more. Its not a charitable request. This directly benefits the pre DR victims.

as for the BG and WTT clients who have paid thousands in to the dream , they need to consider if they feel appropriate to lean on WTT to do more for them. After all Graham from WTT did say its not his money, he asked for a 'mandate/ from his clients.

[GoneSurfing]

I know for a definite fact that it does exist but I can't see WTT sharing it when someone else could fluff it or take all the glory.

FFS. I would hope this was about more than 'taking all the glory'.

[luxCon]

'taking all the glory' plus VAT

FFS. I would hope this was about more than 'taking all the glory'.

Its 'taking all the glory' plus VAT, all invoiced, straight into the firms balance sheet, corp tax paid, dividends declared

[DealorNoDeal]

Its 'taking all the glory' plus VAT, all invoiced, straight into the firms balance sheet, corp tax paid, dividends declared

It's a situation where the company's financial interests and the clients' interests are not well aligned.

What benefits the company is:
a) keeping the fees rolling in for as long as possible
AND
b) minimising outgoings (eg. paying lawyers, funding legal actions)

Personally, I wouldn't like relying wholly on trust and good faith. (Especially in this murky tax world)

[Saleos]

It's a situation where the company's financial interests and the clients' interests are not well aligned.

What benefits the company is:
a) keeping the fees rolling in for as long as possible
AND
b) minimising outgoings (eg. paying lawyers, funding legal actions)

Personally, I wouldn't like relying wholly on trust and good faith. (Especially in this murky tax world)

Quite. So why take that approach when the alternative, a formal Association under which those involved only get paid IF they take the case forward; where any surplus is returned to those who contributed to it and where no VAT is charged (nor invoices raised) for those contributions? Arguably it is a bit late for pertinent questions but if not now, when?

[DealorNoDeal]

Quite. So why take that approach when the alternative, a formal Association under which those involved only get paid IF they take the case forward; where any surplus is returned to those who contributed to it and where no VAT is charged (nor invoices raised) for those contributions? Arguably it is a bit late for pertinent questions but if not now, when?

Possibly too late.

After sticking with something for several years, it's all too easy to fall into the
sunk cost trap

I wonder how much money WTT have set aside as a litigation fund?

[ns1]

£15+vat per month for 4 years is only £864, so hardly much of a sunk cost.And it's peanuts compared to the tax we'd have to pay.

At least we won't be relying on gofundme to pay the lawyers!