Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[ns1]

So again we turn to Lancashire - has that been appealed?

Yes. That was the something.
https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2839313

[malvolio]

Regarding appeals - as that seems to be fairly critical in this particular "discussion" - you can appeal an FTT decision. Firstly to the FTT where a separate judge will agree if there has been an error in the application of the law or an error in the execution of the hearing. If that fails you can then appeal to the UT where the same rules will be made. Timescales vary with the nature of the case, with an upper limit of 56 days from the publication of the decision.

It is rare that you can introduce fresh evidence (although not impossible if it is reasonable to do so) but basically appeals are to correct errors at the lower level(s) - those who recall the Arctic case in any detail will remember that the original fact of the case were never in dispute, it was their application in relationship to the statute that was being challenged.

HTH. But, since opinions seem fairly well entrenched - I rather doubt it.

And no, I'm not entering any further into this thread.

[eek]

Regarding appeals - as that seems to be fairly critical in this particular "discussion" - you can appeal an FTT decision. Firstly to the FTT where a separate judge will agree if there has been an error in the application of the law or an error in the execution of the hearing. If that fails you can then appeal to the UT where the same rules will be made. Timescales vary with the nature of the case, with an upper limit of 56 days from the publication of the decision.

It is rare that you can introduce fresh evidence (although not impossible if it is reasonable to do so) but basically appeals are to correct errors at the lower level(s) - those who recall the Arctic case in any detail will remember that the original fact of the case were never in dispute, it was their application in relationship to the statute that was being challenged.

HTH. But, since opinions seem fairly well entrenched - I rather doubt it.

And no, I'm not entering any further into this thread.

Hoey has already appealed to the Upper Tax Tribunal. My question has always been whether any further appeal will be granted - as the campaign is to raise money for an appeal to the court of appeal and that may not be granted.

[starstruck]

I think the days (or even hours) of this forum may be numbered...

I really hope so, this place is now so full or lies and misinformation its totally ridiculous.

The only thing I know for sure that is true is what I have experienced personally; and all I ever tried to do was to provide some feedback based on my experience having paid for services. I don't trust anything anyone says on here. I'm doubting who is behind most the accounts posting on this thread now.

As for eek, well he is quite simply a lunatic and why are mods not impartial?! cojak is liking his posts that I know to contain lies (because they contain accusations about me that I know to be untrue).

It's utter madness and really quite pathetic.

[eek]

I really hope so, this place is now so full or lies and misinformation its totally ridiculous.

The only thing I know for sure that is true is what I have experienced personally; and all I ever tried to do was to provide some feedback based on my experience having paid for services. I don't trust anything anyone says on here. I'm doubting who is behind most the accounts posting on this thread now.

As for eek, well he is quite simply a lunatic and why are mods not impartial?! cojak is liking his posts that I know to contain lies (because they contain accusations about me that I know to be untrue).

It's utter madness and really quite pathetic.

What accusations have a made about you - that are untrue?

But while you are here

1) Where on the GoFundMe campaign site does it say that the money you are requesting will be refunded if no appeal occurs.

2) How many millions did your mate Saleos and his cronies make from the schemes he devised and sold?

3) Are you one of those cronies who profited from the schemes or are you one of those people he tricked into using one.

4) How many people is your mate Saleos responsible for the suicide of because of the 10 years plus grief and consist threat of imminent and immediate bankruptcy that his schemes resulted in given that all they wanted and what he sold them was a hassle free life without needing to worry about IR35?

I await your answers...

[TheDogsNads]

Hoey has already appealed to the Upper Tax Tribunal. My question has always been whether any further appeal will be granted - as the campaign is to raise money for an appeal that may not be granted.

You show an abject lack of knowledge about the appeal process. There are two stages: 1, obtain Leave to appeal and 2, if granted, a substantive appeal hearing held to decide the subject matter of the appeal.

'Leave' is legal jargon for permission. When appealling a decision, one has to show the lower court's judgement was essentially made on an error in law. There are numerous examples of what constitutes this if you search the web.

It is clear to anyone involved in appealing a decision to a higher court that Leave may or may not be given. No one can predict whether Leave will be granted because that's at the behest of a judge. A legal representative should have a very good idea as to the likely outcome.

UTT decisions are only binding where cases are clearly on the same points. Where they are different does not preclude another case from appealling to a UTT. Yes, HMRC can pull all sorts of tricks and claim cases are more similar than they are. Again, this will come down to the judge's decision whether Leave should be granted.

As regards Hoey's UTT decision, their option now is to fold or, seek Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal which is, a higher court than the UTT. However, the point of law test becomes more stringent the higher up the Judicial system you go.

[eek]

You show an abject lack of knowledge about the appeal process. There are two stages: 1, obtain Leave to appeal and 2, if granted, a substantive appeal hearing held to decide the subject matter of the appeal.

'Leave' is legal jargon for permission. When appealling a decision, one has to show the lower court's judgement was essentially made on an error in law. There are numerous examples of what constitutes this if you search the web.

It is clear to anyone involved in appealing a decision to a higher court that Leave may or may not be given. No one can predict whether Leave will be granted because that's at the behest of a judge. A legal representative should have a very good idea as to the likely outcome.

UTT decisions are only binding where cases are clearly on the same points. Where they are different does not preclude another case from appealling to a UTT. Yes, HMRC can pull all sorts of tricks and claim cases are more similar than they are. Again, this will come down to the judge's decision whether Leave should be granted.

As regards Hoey's UTT decision, their option now is to fold or, seek Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal which is, a higher court than the UTT. However, the point of law test becomes more stringent the higher up the Judicial system you go.

In what why does my statement "My question has always been whether any further appeal will be granted" differ from the more complete explanation you've given above.

Hoey wishes to appeal - my entire point is that there is no certainty that leave for the appeal will be given - as you say yourself the test becomes more stringent the higher up things go.

And the money is currently being raised without clear evidence that were leave to appeal not to be granted the money would be refunded - we only have Saleos's word for that - it isn't stated on the GoFundMe campaign page nor on GoFundMe's website.

[luxCon]

Where are the Mods?

What accusations have a made about you - that are untrue?

4) How many people is your mate Saleos responsible for the suicide of because of the 10 years plus grief and consist threat of imminent and immediate bankruptcy that his schemes resulted in given that all they wanted and what he sold them was a hassle free life without needing to worry about IR35?

Seriously, the allegations you are making are really libelous and am surprised the mods are not stopping you as CUK is as much liable as you will be.

If anything, CUK exists as a legal entity with directors and shareholders who could have some headache to deal with for obviously, and under their nose allowing these to be published. Where as you think you are anonymous.

You are making allegations, and these are getting increasingly unfunded and more libelous against named and known individuals. If I was him I would get my solicitor to write CUK a letter.

This is getting ridiculous and the mods need to intervene. Surely they see whats goin on, and this is negligance.

[eek]

Seriously, the allegations you are making are really libelous and am surprised the mods are not stopping you as CUK is as much liable as you will be.

If anything, CUK exists as a legal entity with directors and shareholders who could have some headache to deal with for obviously, and under their nose allowing these to be published. Where as you think you are anonymous.

You are making allegations, and these are getting increasingly unfunded and more libelous against named and known individuals. If I was him I would get my solicitor to write CUK a letter.

This is getting ridiculous and the mods need to intervene. Surely they see whats goin on, and this is negligance.

1) Did Mr Hall sell a tax avoidance scheme to contractors prior to 2010?

2) Has anyone committed suicide as a consequence of the results of being a member of such a scheme (we know the answer to that one is yes)?

3) Are either of those facts inaccurate?

You may not like the fact I've decided to be blunt but given muiltiple people who are seemingly mates with Mr Hall have spent a week attacking me, let's explicitly point out Saleos / Mr Hall's history.

[TheDogsNads]

In what why does my statement "My question has always been whether any further appeal will be granted" differ from the more complete explanation you've given above.

Hoey wishes to appeal - my entire point is that there is no certainty that leave for the appeal will be given - as you say yourself the test becomes more stringent the higher up things go.

And the money is currently being raised without clear evidence that were no leave to appeal be granted the money would be refunded - we only have Saleos's word for that.

You seem to think seeking 'Leave' and the substantive appeal hearing are one and the same thing. They are not. They are two distinctive actions.

If the first is granted, the second will happen. If the first is not granted, the second will not happen. But, in either outcome, someone has to pay the legal fees to lodge, construct and present the legal argument to support the Leave action.

For the substantive appeal to be heard, money has to be raised for the Leave action to be heard. Why do you not understand that simple fact?

When you pay tutition fees, do you 'know' you will pass the exam and get the honours qualification at the end of it?

When you take your car for its MOT do you know with certainty it will pass? Do you refuse to pay the MOT fee if it fails? Do you not take your car for an MOT because you dont know whether it will pass or not?