JD Classics, what have they been up to?
Discussion
Some may be asking why Tuke bothered to sue and why Hood bothered to defend if it is indeed the case that Hood has entered bankruptcy. The reason for this is probably much the same on both sides. Hood may have substantial assets held through companies, trusts, or family and associates. Tuke may seek to get at those assets, as may Hood's Trustee in bankruptcy, especially if Tuke funds the Trustee to do so. Hood for his part may have fought the case either because he was concerned about his reputation, or, more likely, because he knew that hiding his assets would not save him from a well funded campaign to find them, so he needed to avoid a large judgment against him if possible.
Breadvan72 said:
Some may be asking why Tuke bothered to sue and why Hood bothered to defend if it is indeed the case that Hood has entered bankruptcy. The reason for this is probably much the same on both sides.
The bankruptcy thing smells to me. How and why do you end up unable to pay a £1m HMRC bill if you've just trousered £38M from the sale of a company?silentbrown said:
The bankruptcy thing smells to me. How and why do you end up unable to pay a £1m HMRC bill if you've just trousered £38M from the sale of a company?
In fact, one would suspect that the defendant has made more than £38M from the company, given that it was involved in multi-million pound transactions before its sale. Thus it would be reasonable to suspect that profits made, or allegedly made, would have been taken out of the company before its sale...silentbrown said:
The bankruptcy thing smells to me. How and why do you end up unable to pay a £1m HMRC bill if you've just trousered £38M from the sale of a company?
1. Deliberate insolvency is a tactic. Look at Trump, Maxwell, Archer, etc. I do not know whether or not it is a tactic deployed in this case. 2. In any event, cashflow can catch people out.
Prior to having to endure a divorce through the courts all the way to a final hearing, my experience luckily of the law was limited to watching crown court on tv when I should have been studying for my A levels.
The vast majority of Joe public are completely ignorant of the complexity of the law and its various branches, we just think it is self policing and generally works. So when we read of cases such as this it can be very perplexing as to how things play out.
I found that those in the business, because they are surrounded by it day in day out forget how naive we nearly all are to the whole process.
The first thing that amazed me when sitting in the corridor of the family court waiting my turn, were barristers turning up a few mins before going in front of the judge, walking around looking for their client, introducing themselves to some poor soul who looked like a rabbit in the headlights and off they go, how can someone you have never met who has simply read your case notes minutes before do a proper job for you was my first thought.
The second one was the variety of judges involved, I think we saw about 5 during the process, each with a completely different viewpoint on the same information in front of them.
The final judgment really was luck of the draw as to which of these you ended up with, had all 5 been in the room I am certain there would have been 5 very different decisions made.
A couple of years later I was involved in another case in the same court which was presided over by the boss of those 5 judges, my god that was a very different way of doing things, the lady was so switched on it was scary, I remember thinking why could she not have been in charge of my divorce, she saw straight through all the smoke and mirrors presented by the exact same party previously, and I would now have been far richer as a result! yet she could not still revise what had happened previously, even though she could see the last judge had been duped, as it was a separate, though related case. This is where many of us struggle with the divisions within law, such as fraud in civil versus fraud in criminal. We think it is all directly linked, being "the law".
Anyway my ramblings are mainly aimed at the legal professionals on here making observations, I find their views very interesting and thank them for their time in explaining it all, and it must be frustrating to seem to have to dumb down at times or repeat what you have already stated, but just remember most of us are that rabbit in the headlights.
The vast majority of Joe public are completely ignorant of the complexity of the law and its various branches, we just think it is self policing and generally works. So when we read of cases such as this it can be very perplexing as to how things play out.
I found that those in the business, because they are surrounded by it day in day out forget how naive we nearly all are to the whole process.
The first thing that amazed me when sitting in the corridor of the family court waiting my turn, were barristers turning up a few mins before going in front of the judge, walking around looking for their client, introducing themselves to some poor soul who looked like a rabbit in the headlights and off they go, how can someone you have never met who has simply read your case notes minutes before do a proper job for you was my first thought.
The second one was the variety of judges involved, I think we saw about 5 during the process, each with a completely different viewpoint on the same information in front of them.
The final judgment really was luck of the draw as to which of these you ended up with, had all 5 been in the room I am certain there would have been 5 very different decisions made.
A couple of years later I was involved in another case in the same court which was presided over by the boss of those 5 judges, my god that was a very different way of doing things, the lady was so switched on it was scary, I remember thinking why could she not have been in charge of my divorce, she saw straight through all the smoke and mirrors presented by the exact same party previously, and I would now have been far richer as a result! yet she could not still revise what had happened previously, even though she could see the last judge had been duped, as it was a separate, though related case. This is where many of us struggle with the divisions within law, such as fraud in civil versus fraud in criminal. We think it is all directly linked, being "the law".
Anyway my ramblings are mainly aimed at the legal professionals on here making observations, I find their views very interesting and thank them for their time in explaining it all, and it must be frustrating to seem to have to dumb down at times or repeat what you have already stated, but just remember most of us are that rabbit in the headlights.
Breadvan72 said:
Some may be asking why Tuke bothered to sue and why Hood bothered to defend if it is indeed the case that Hood has entered bankruptcy.
A classic car specialist who I have known for 20 years has Michael Tuke's brother as a client. While it is but hearsay, I am told that he sued because he could, and carried on suing after the bankruptcy for the same reason.silentbrown said:
DonkeyApple said:
Despite Tuke having the same problem practically within months of banking £60m? 
Having to sell some assets to pay a bill is rather different from applying to become bankrupt. For poor Tuke, I would think much depends on how well Hood went about any such activity to secure his wealth as well as whether he stands any chance of getting in in front of Charme as to whether he can push Hood into a pay-off just to make him go away.
stichill99 said:
A supermarket buys a pork pie for 15p. They sell it for £1.20 does that make them crooks?
Only when it is Tesco's who have bought the pork pie from an Irish processor who has been mixing in Polish horse meat to cheapen the product!
Asda used to sell a really nice, fresh, pre prepared Bolognese sauce in their premium brand range that I quite enjoyed when I was suddenly a single man again, then it vanished from the shelves, and never returned, every time I shopped there I would take a look only to see bare shelves, then one day I read about the case you mention and it all made sense! seems that horse it not that bad after all Only when it is Tesco's who have bought the pork pie from an Irish processor who has been mixing in Polish horse meat to cheapen the product!
Car_Nut said:
silentbrown said:
The bankruptcy thing smells to me. How and why do you end up unable to pay a £1m HMRC bill if you've just trousered £38M from the sale of a company?
In fact, one would suspect that the defendant has made more than £38M from the company, given that it was involved in multi-million pound transactions before its sale. Thus it would be reasonable to suspect that profits made, or allegedly made, would have been taken out of the company before its sale...Edited by Burwood on Saturday 31st October 15:41
PAUL500 said:
I found that those in the business, because they are surrounded by it day in day out forget how naive we nearly all are to the whole process.
I'll recommend this here before BV does. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-...
neutral 3 said:
Did he really have the front, to pass off that E Type to Tuke, as a genuine factory lightweight ??
Trumpism? i.e. an arrogant belief, based on “getting away with things” over a period of years that one is a genius that can do no wrong, and that everyone else is a dim witted fool, unable to see through your brilliance. Just a personal theory....PAUL500 said:
...
Any
way my ramblings are mainly aimed at the legal professionals on here making observations, I find their views very interesting and thank them for their time in explaining it all, and it must be frustrating to seem to have to dumb down at times or repeat what you have already stated, but just remember most of us are that rabbit in the headlights.
You are welcome. It saddens me that the population is not educated about the law. By the way, commercial litigation such as the Tuke v Hood case does not operate in any way like family litigation, and the legal teams don't just turn up and meet their clients at the last minute. A case like that is one that the lawyers and clients live in for years on end. Any
way my ramblings are mainly aimed at the legal professionals on here making observations, I find their views very interesting and thank them for their time in explaining it all, and it must be frustrating to seem to have to dumb down at times or repeat what you have already stated, but just remember most of us are that rabbit in the headlights.
The family courts are a disgrace. They operate inside a silo, cut off from the rest of the legal system. Too many family lawyers are useless idiots who make things worse for their clients. They give other types of lawyer a bad name.
Free tiny legal factoid: when you read the words "Tuke v Hood", say them in you head as "Tuke and Hood" . English lawyers write v, v, or versus, but do not say those things. I have no clue why!
EDIT: I do know why. See further down.
American lawyers says Tuke versus Hood.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 31st October 17:51
lowdrag said:
Breadvan72 said:
Some may be asking why Tuke bothered to sue and why Hood bothered to defend if it is indeed the case that Hood has entered bankruptcy.
A classic car specialist who I have known for 20 years has Michael Tuke's brother as a client. While it is but hearsay, I am told that he sued because he could, and carried on suing after the bankruptcy for the same reason.Breadvan72 said:
Free tiny legal factoid: when you read the words "Tuke v Hood", say them in you head as "Tuke and Hood" . English lawyers write v, v, or versus, but do not say those things. I have no clue why! American lawyers says Tuke versus Hood.
"Kramer and Kramer" doesn't sound too compelling!Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff