Jump to content

neiljung

New Signing
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    glasgow

Recent Profile Visitors

1,023 profile views

neiljung's Achievements

New Signing

New Signing (1/12)

3

Reputation

  1. I work for a Government department who are involved in civil cases on a daily basis, I worked in their appeals department a few years ago and this is what I remember, I will share a bit of knowledge to hopefully help clear a few things up with the procedural side of things. HMRC have lost the First Tier Tribunal, they have appealed this decision but can only appeal if they think there has been an error in the way the law has been applied. This new hearing is only to assess the First Tier decision and can go one of two ways; there has been an error in law therefore the case will be sent to the Upper Tribunal to reassess the same facts. No new evidence can be brought to this hearing, all the same evidence will be assessed and the new Judges and Layperson can call the same witnesses to ask different questions but must still use the old evidence. The second outcome is the new Judge finds no error in law and the case is finished. In the second outcome HMRC still have the option of a Judicial Review if they still think there has been an error in law. This is part of Scots law in which everyone resident in Scotland can submit a Judicial Review against any decision even if they have no right of appeal. If this fails the case is done. If the case goes to the Upper Tribunal and HMRC win then whoever is acting for oldco can appeal this decision. The Upper Tribunal can also refer the case back to the First Tier if they cannot make an agreement on the outcome. In either of these circumstances HMRC have still lost. Worst case scenario is the case gets to the Upper Tribunal and they overturn the decision in HMRC’s favour then oldco can seek a judicial Review of this decision. Judicial Reviews are not the same as any other case as they rely on proportionality of the decision (amongst other things I can’t remember just now). This is often why murders get a reduced sentence by JR, they are still guilty but the punishment outweighed the crime. The question asked would be was going through all of this proportionate to the money HMRC may get back? The fact the case will be heard in public makes no difference, these are civil cases with no jury and only a panel of Judges and Laypeople. Any members of public in the gallery are there to observe only and will not be involved in any part of the hearing. Civil cases rely on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt so there is no need for a jury. The First Tier voted 2-1 against HMRC, the two Judges voting against and they Layperson for. This is positive as the expectation is the Judges know the law and apply it properly. The only negative is HMRC can withdraw action at anytime if they think they may loose then hit oldco with another bill with different demands, this case everyone is back to square one. I work for a Government department who are involved in civil cases on a daily basis, I worked in their appeals department a few years ago and this is what I remember, I will share a bit of knowledge to hopefully help clear a few things up with the procedural side of things. HMRC have lost the First Tier Tribunal, they have appealed this decision but can only appeal if they think there has been an error in the way the law has been applied. This new hearing is only to assess the First Tier decision and can go one of two ways; there has been an error in law therefore the case will be sent to the Upper Tribunal to reassess the same facts. No new evidence can be brought to this hearing, all the same evidence will be assessed and the new Judges and Layperson can call the same witnesses to ask different questions but must still use the old evidence. The second outcome is the new Judge finds no error in law and the case is finished. In the second outcome HMRC still have the option of a Judicial Review if they still think there has been an error in law. This is part of Scots law in which everyone resident in Scotland can submit a Judicial Review against any decision even if they have no right of appeal. If this fails the case is done. If the case goes to the Upper Tribunal and HMRC win then whoever is acting for oldco can appeal this decision. The Upper Tribunal can also refer the case back to the First Tier if they cannot make an agreement on the outcome. In either of these circumstances HMRC have still lost. Worst case scenario is the case gets to the Upper Tribunal and they overturn the decision in HMRC’s favour then oldco can seek a judicial Review of this decision. Judicial Reviews are not the same as any other case as they rely on proportionality of the decision (amongst other things I can’t remember just now). This is often why murders get a reduced sentence by JR, they are still guilty but the punishment outweighed the crime. The question asked would be was going through all of this proportionate to the money HMRC may get back? The fact the case will be heard in public makes no difference, these are civil cases with no jury and only a panel of Judges and Laypeople. Any members of public in the gallery are there to observe only and will not be involved in any part of the hearing. Civil cases rely on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt so there is no need for a jury. The First Tier voted 2-1 against HMRC, the two Judges voting against and they Layperson for. This is positive as the expectation is the Judges know the law and apply it properly. Another positive is Government Departments get a hard time in court and must have a watertight case, the Judges want to show they are impartial and seperate from the state but by doing this they will more often than not give the other side the benefit of doubt more than the Government. Judges also do not like it if they think the Government is being aggressive in it pursuit of an outcome. The only negative is HMRC can withdraw action at anytime if they think they may lose then hit oldco with another bill with different demands, this case everyone is back to square one. It's Friday night and I have had a few beers but hopefully this makes sense.
  2. It will depend on what teams we will be playing, they will pick the colour and design that will clash the least with the other clubs in whatever league we end up in.
×
×
  • Create New...