In our issue of 7 June 2010, we reported on the decision in British Dental Association v HMRC [TC0048, 18 May 2010].
We stated that Counsel for the appellant Association had failed to cite an important authority on the point at issue in the case.
In our issue of 7 June 2010, we reported on the decision in British Dental Association v HMRC [TC0048, 18 May 2010].
We stated that Counsel for the appellant Association had failed to cite an important authority on the point at issue in the case.
We described this as 'the most remarkable feature of the case' and asserted that Counsel had failed to carry out the research which the Association might have expected and that this 'could have cost her clients the case'.
We now accept that this criticism was wholly unfounded. As the judgment makes clear, there was no basis for suggesting that there was any 'failure' at all on the part of Counsel for the Association, still less one that could have cost her clients the case.
On the contrary, the judgment shows that the Tribunal found her presentation of the case exemplary and her arguments compelling.
We apologise unreservedly to Counsel for the Association for this unwarranted slur to her professional competence and reputation. We have removed the report from our online services and undertaken not to republish it.
In our issue of 7 June 2010, we reported on the decision in British Dental Association v HMRC [TC0048, 18 May 2010].
We stated that Counsel for the appellant Association had failed to cite an important authority on the point at issue in the case.
In our issue of 7 June 2010, we reported on the decision in British Dental Association v HMRC [TC0048, 18 May 2010].
We stated that Counsel for the appellant Association had failed to cite an important authority on the point at issue in the case.
We described this as 'the most remarkable feature of the case' and asserted that Counsel had failed to carry out the research which the Association might have expected and that this 'could have cost her clients the case'.
We now accept that this criticism was wholly unfounded. As the judgment makes clear, there was no basis for suggesting that there was any 'failure' at all on the part of Counsel for the Association, still less one that could have cost her clients the case.
On the contrary, the judgment shows that the Tribunal found her presentation of the case exemplary and her arguments compelling.
We apologise unreservedly to Counsel for the Association for this unwarranted slur to her professional competence and reputation. We have removed the report from our online services and undertaken not to republish it.
