ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Business and governance
    5. Charities
    6. Coronavirus
    7. Corporate and financial reporting
    8. Cyber security
    9. Ethics
    10. Insolvency
    11. ICAS Research
    12. Pensions
    13. Practice
    14. Public sector
    15. Sustainability
    16. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

Employment status case surprisingly returned back to First Tier Tribunal

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
Justine Riccomini By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

2 November 2021

Main points:

  • Key aspects such as ‘Mutuality of Obligation’ (MOO) and control are still being considered
  • The Court of Appeal has surprisingly now referred the case back to be re-considered at the FTT
  • This case originally dates back to 2018 and its eventual outcome should assist in deciding other pending status cases which concern themselves with how to determine and define the extent of mutuality and control

Justine Riccomini considers the latest employment status case coming out of the Court of Appeal and wonders how far the case will go before it is finally decided.

Background

The case decision of HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL), issued on 17 September 2021 and which concerns itself with the employment status of part-time professional football referees, has now been referred back to the First Tier Tribunal by the Court of Appeal. It is thought by many that the eventual final conclusions in this case may be likely to have an effect on other status cases pending decision, such as the 2019 case of Mantides, because PGMOL concentrates in the main on the principles of mutuality of obligation and control, which have been examined in some detail, and if the PGMOL case is to form a precedent, it will be likely to influence thinking in terms of how to consider these two principles in future.

The Court of Appeal decided that the FTT and UT had not placed a correct interpretation (i.e. they had “erred in law”) on the key employment status concepts of Mutuality of Obligation and control (FTT on both concepts; UT only on Mutuality) – and the Court of Appeal directed that the case should be remitted back to the FTT to consider, on the basis of its original findings of fact, whether there were sufficient mutuality of obligation and control in the individual contracts for those contracts to be contracts of employment.

The decision noted that it would not be appropriate for the Court of Appeal to make those assessments, which it said were “best made by a specialist fact-finding tribunal, not an appellate Court”.

In recent cases heard in respect of IR35, Off-payroll working arrangements, and general employment status matters, the trend has been for the courts to place an increasing reliance on the Ready Mixed Concrete case; in other words

“A contract of service exists if three conditions are fulfilled. (i) The servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master. (ii) He agrees, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other's control in a sufficient degree to make that other master. (iii) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service.

This is not what happened here.

How did the FTT and UT “err in law”?

1.Mutuality of obligation

Whilst the FTT considered that the ability to terminate the contract by one party or the other broke the mutuality of obligation concept, the Court of Appeal considered that this was irrelevant – it was sufficient that the contract existed at all to prove the existence of mutuality. Mutuality as a standalone factor did not convey the existence of an employment contract – it proved the existence of a contract – which could be one of employment or self-employment.

The Upper Tribunal had reached the same conclusions as the FTT on the issue of mutuality – that it had ceased to exist when the contract was terminated prematurely. The Court of Appeal concluded that they therefore also erred in law on this point. Added to this, the UT had been mistaken in aspects such as their interpretation of the relationship between individual and overarching contracts, and the presumption that an employer would be able to impose a form of sanction for breach of contract – but seeing as no such sanction existed, the referees could not be employed.

2.Control

Turning to the concept of control – the Court of Appeal said the FTT had erred by concluding there was insufficient control to deem the referees to be employees, for two reasons. At paras 126 and 127 of the decision, Lady Justice Laing opined that the FTT had asked itself the wrong questions – first, by asking whether “PGMOL had ‘an even theoretical right to step in’ while the referee was actually officiating” which was too narrow – instead, they should have considered the overarching contract “amounted to a sufficient framework of control”.

Second, the FTT had erred by asking whether the training and assessment protocols had a significant impact on the level of control exerted over the referees. They concluded that it had not, when instead, Lady Justice Laing opined that it should have been possible for the FTT to realise that the training and assessment protocols provided an overarching framework for consistency of approach to refereeing – and thus, how the role was executed, by an ongoing and continuous process of review and reflection.

Added to this, the Court of Appeal decided the UT had been mistaken in their presumption that an employer would be able to impose a form of sanction for breach of contract – and seeing as no such sanction existed, the referees could not be employed.  The Court of Appeal considered this to have been too narrow an interpretation, whereas consideration of the overarching nature of the contracts would have delivered a different result.

Cat amongst the pigeons

The Court of Appeal decided to refer the case back to the FTT so that it could consider, on the basis of its original findings of fact, whether there were sufficient mutuality of obligation and control in the individual contracts for those contracts to be contracts of employment.

The outcome remains to be seen, but this case does appear to be moving towards an HMRC victory following this judgement – and goes against what most status experts were thinking would happen.

One thing that is needed from this case is a precedent on how much weight mutuality of obligation actually carries when determining employment status so that tax advisers and employers understand what is required of them when making Status Determination Statements for off-payroll workers and when trying to grapple with and understand the employment status landscape generally.

Mutuality of Obligation once again defeats HMRC when Upper Tribunal blows the whistle

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

19 May 2020

Sporting celebrities at a loss in the status stakes

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

18 September 2020

2-23-marsh 2-23-marsh
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: