16 September 2024
The Supreme Court has finally made a decision in the long-awaited case between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL).
The Supreme Court finds that there is enough evidence to show mutuality of obligation and control in relation to the individual contracts of match officials for refereeing duties.
However, in light of this decision, the Supreme Court has remitted the case back to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to assess if a contract of employment exists. They are to take a view based on the Supreme Courts findings as well as understandings from the Atholl House case.
This does mean that we don’t have a clear picture of how the two tests considered relate to the formation of a contract of employment. HMRC will likely see this current decision as a win, but for businesses dealing with status determinations it is unlikely to help.
There are some interesting considerations to take from the Supreme Courts judgement that may assist you in your own compliance:
- The right to termination of a contract does not indicate self-employment and should be considered irrelevant for mutuality of obligation and control tests
- Mutuality of obligation only needs to be shown during the period of the contract in the case of individual periods of engagement
- The ability to intervene in the work conducted may not be necessary to establish control if there are sufficient contractual obligation as to a workers conduct while contracted.
Information provided in this news article may be subject to change. Please make note of the date of publication to ensure that you are viewing up to date information.