Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[TheDogsNads]

And once again another post that really won't help your desire to raise more money.

Mind you sitting on £5000 with a target of £250,000 really isn't the best way to raise money - you should start with achievable targets and point out where the other sources of funding are coming from. At the moment that fund isn't going to pay out a penny as it's not going to get anywhere near the desired target (as the continual attacks and insults on here aimed at the only people likely to contribute to the fund makes very clear).

Be careful, he might send you a sinister 'Can you back that up?' pm!

[eek]

Be careful, he might send you a sinister 'Can you back that up?' pm!

Actually I was mistaken - it's actually using gofundme's "pay for your holiday in Barbados"* immediate payment approach.

*I'm not saying that is the case here but the approach used does mean that once you've sent the money you have no control over how it's being used regardless of the claims within the request.

[dammit chloe]

Actually I was mistaken - it's actually using gofundme's "pay for your holiday in Barbados"* immediate payment approach.

*I'm not saying that is the case here but the approach used does mean that once you've sent the money you have no control over how it's being used regardless of the claims within the request.

Given how far the Hoey case has got I think the need for transparency and questioning is more appropriate elsewhere.

[eek]

Given how far the Hoey case has got I think the need for transparency and questioning is more appropriate elsewhere.

Exactly what have I been saying about not attacking Big Group as it provides zero reasons to encourage members there to contribute to this case as well?

[stonehenge]

What is the difference between WTT's case and the Hoey case?

I hope BG members know the answer to that.

[Saleos]

What is the difference between WTT's case and the Hoey case?

I hope BG members know the answer to that.

Is it

a) that one has already been to the FTT & UT whilst the other is nowhere to be seen?

b) that the arguments for one are known (and in the public domain) but in the other are a secret (even from those paying for them)?

c) that funds raised for one aren't invoiced nor have VAT added, but the other does?

d) that if there is any surplus contributions or if litigation does not proceed the contributors, rather than shareholders, get the excess?

e) all of the above.

I look forward to the BG sales and marketing team on CUK responding. Don't let me down Eek.

[eek]

Is it

a) that one has already been to the FTT & UT whilst the other is nowhere to be seen?

b) that the arguments for one are known (and in the public domain) but in the other are a secret (even from those paying for them)?

c) that funds raised for one aren't invoiced nor have VAT added, but the other does?

d) that if there is any surplus contributions or if litigation does not proceed the contributors, rather than shareholders, get the excess?

e) all of the above.

I look forward to the BG sales and marketing team on CUK responding. Don't let me down Eek.

Beyond the fact I'm not anyone sales or marketing team - I think your responses tell me all you need to know

Good luck insulting people while seeking to get money off them - I can see it's working wonders for your campaign - as you have raised less money than I made in 2 days this week.

But I had thought it was well known that HMRC ensure the cases they believe are easier wins are heard first as it narrows down possible conversations - and with this case in progress HMRC will be delaying all others until there is an actual determination that can be used.

And finally, could you actual answer Stonehenge's question - as it would be useful to have a clear explanation of what arguments are being settled by the Hoey case?

[brayveheart]

And once again another post that really won't help your desire to raise more money.

Mind you sitting on £5000 with a target of £250,000 really isn't the best way to raise money - you should start with achievable targets and point out where the other sources of funding are coming from. At the moment that fund isn't going to pay out a penny as it's not going to get anywhere near the desired target (as the continual attacks and insults on here aimed at the only people likely to contribute to the fund makes very clear).

I think the GoFundMe is meant to be an additional route to funding on top of the Litigation Association that's funded matters to date. Therefore, the GoFundMe total isn't representative of any funding gap that may exist.

I would encourage people to seriously consider supporting Hoey, including those whose litigation hasn't yet started. The outcome is likely to have a significant impact on any and all cases that follow.

[eek]

I think the GoFundMe is meant to be an additional route to funding on top of the Litigation Association that's funded matters to date. Therefore, the GoFundMe total isn't representative of any funding gap that may exist.

I would encourage people to seriously consider supporting Hoey, including those whose litigation hasn't yet started. The outcome is likely to have a significant impact on any and all cases that follow.

Once again, in what way, what avenues does it cover and close off?

[Superfly]

Is it

a) that one has already been to the FTT & UT whilst the other is nowhere to be seen?

b) that the arguments for one are known (and in the public domain) but in the other are a secret (even from those paying for them)?

c) that funds raised for one aren't invoiced nor have VAT added, but the other does?

d) that if there is any surplus contributions or if litigation does not proceed the contributors, rather than shareholders, get the excess?

e) all of the above.

I look forward to the BG sales and marketing team on CUK responding. Don't let me down Eek.

To his credit, Eek does slip in a criticism of WTT every now and then to maintain the ruse.

He is on this forum far too often with his benevolence imparting casual neutral tax and contract law advice.

Reminds me of SteveMatch as his posts had a strong bias running through them tilted towards a certain adviser.

I used to wonder whether Eek was actually Tom Wallace