• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Who Said Law was boring?"

Collapse

  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Summary judgement != final judgement. He can continue to a full trial but based on the Judge's comments in the summary judgement he would be mad to continue the case...
    And a cracking bit of understatement by the judge from earlier in the document gives an idea of what his decision will be:

    ...but I am not prepared to conclude on the present state of the evidence that Miss Eustace's evidence should be rejected and that Mr Baxendale-Walker's should be accepted on all points on which they are in dispute. On the contrary, it seems to me on the basis of the material provided so far that there is likely to be fertile ground for cross-examination on both sides, and that the case may well look rather different at the end of a trial from the way in which it appears today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Summary judgement != final judgement. He can continue to a full trial but based on the Judge's comments in the summary judgement he would be mad to continue the case...
    Stop using non-ANSI SQL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hairy
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Summary judgement != final judgement. He can continue to a full trial but based on the Judge's comments in the summary judgement he would be mad to continue the case...
    No, I get that, but I think evidence provided stated they were gifts, so in HMRC's case, he has to live for 6 years. So, his pretrial says he stuffed, and a main one probably would too, as you said!

    Either way, good work darling!

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Hairy View Post
    He looks like a Hollywood Milliband.

    I think the summary judgement was that the house, and car, was gifted to her, so HMRC can't touch it, if he lives for another 6 years.
    Summary judgement != final judgement. He can continue to a full trial but based on the Judge's comments in the summary judgement he would be mad to continue the case...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hairy
    replied
    He looks like a Hollywood Milliband.

    I think the summary judgement was that the house, and car, was gifted to her, so HMRC can't touch it, if he lives for another 6 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    He is probably putting legal profession into disrepute
    Not possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    So.... being a bit of a simple straight talking northern bloke.... Who got the flat and range rover?
    The Lawyers of course!

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    He is probably putting legal profession into disrepute
    very difficult

    love the Avatar!

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Summary judgement was rejected. So nothing has been decided but the Judge doesn't like the bloke....
    He is probably putting legal profession into disrepute

    Leave a comment:


  • NickFitz
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    There was a thread about this recently which linked to a newspaper article that claimed he'd sent her texts declaring his undying love.
    Also emails, quoted in the judgment linked to.

    Leave a comment:


  • amcdonald
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    I wonder if she wins HMRC will pursue her for a slice of tax?

    Its clear her client regards her as getting the goods for services rendered?
    Well she was definitely providing personal services

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    I wonder if she wins HMRC will pursue her for a slice of tax?

    Its clear her client regards her as getting the goods for services rendered?

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    That was the one.

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    We are missing the obligatory Daily Mail link so I've added it.
    That was the one.

    ‘It is the Natasha colour of my soul. I guess it must always have been there, but it took you coming into my life to awaken it.
    ‘Since then, my life has not been the same. It can never be the same.
    ‘The specialness of who you are has opened my heart as I never knew it could be. That is an amazing, beautiful thing…’

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    We are missing the obligatory Daily Mail link so I've added it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X