halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,696
I had a bit of a dance with someone some months ago on this point.
My point was that if ultimately the IC rules that there was evidence to prove the charges then by definition that will have been because or either. : Fraud , Concealment or a Mistake by virtue of that the charges aren’t time barred.
If the charges aren’t proved then the argument is irrelevant
It depends which allegations you are talking about, imho. And what the allegations actually are. Proving an allegation doesn't automatically mean "knowing concealment" (proving fraud presumably does). And I am not sure a mistake, or a difference in interpretation on an accounting matter, if you will, is either as, if you believed you were in the right, then there could be no "knowing concealment".
Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point is that I have never heard that a tribunal process, as described by @domalino , won't take into account the limitation periods of the Limitation Act in its judgment. I was asking, really, for his clarification on that and his reasoning. He may be right, the law is an ass, after all. But I very much doubt it.