egos® – the legal
consultancy – for business
This is the IR35 and
Employment Status Cases page - This page is primarily relevant to
Contractors & Freelancers
Links to: Index - Welcome / What We Do - Contact Details & Availability – Contact us – Terms of Business
• consideration of the public
sector IR35 changes and its roll-out to the private sector;
• the Christianuyi case
on managed service companies;
• new cases on employment status, in
particular the football referees' case and the Court of Appeal and Supreme
Court judgments in Pimlico Plumbers;
• an expanded section on officer
status in the public sector;
• revised commentary on the
importance of the Market Investigations case in the light of
recent case law developments;
• revised and updated commentary on
implied terms in contracts.
-
for
more details and ordering information click here.
|
Case name, year; court |
What the case was |
Particular issues raised, & notes |
|
2019 |
|
|
|
Worker, Employee, or neither? – worker |
What
substitution is not (releasing shift into pool via app) |
|
|
IR35 |
There was a
sufficient degree of control to justify a ‘within IR35’ finding |
|
|
Employment (for employment law
purposes) |
There was
no right of substitution; there a substantial degree of control;
it was possible to (and the tribunal did) imply mutuality of
obligation; and the presence of a exclusivity restriction on the
individual against working for others or holding his own operator licence
made it clear that the individual was not IBOOA (in business on (his) own
account). These
points outweighed the pointers towards self-employment - which included the
provision of own vehicle, paying own fuel and maintenance, and paying for
equipment hire. The
individual was found not just to be a worker, but an employee, and so
entitled not to be unfairly dismissed, to NMW/NLW, and to holiday pay. |
|
|
2018 |
|
|
|
Limb (b) worker status |
In
litigation about employment status, the tribunal will look at the reality of
the working relationship. Travel time
between home and customers is working time. Limb (b)
workers; obliged to accept work when
logged in; and logged-in time was
working time. Contractual
documentation did not properly reflect the true agreement between the
parties. |
|
|
Employment status |
MoO: Individual match appointments each gave
rise to a contract - but there was no sanction if, after offer and
acceptance, either party were to cancel - there was no obligation, outside
the performance of duties at a match. Control: -
for the contracts to be contracts of employment, there must be some
kind of contractual right of control, in the sense of the employer being able
to step in, even if not exercised in practice, and even if the individual is
engaged to exercise his own judgment about how to do the work -
a right to advise (and even to take action afterwards) does not of
itself constitute a right to control -
a right to terminate a particular contract does not of itself
constitute a right of control during that contract Overall: Insufficient mutuality of obligation and
control in the individual engagements as to amount to employment |
|
|
WTR etc Self-employed couriers Held to be a ‘worker’ – dependent work
relationship |
Despite relatively unfettered substitution provisions; it will be interesting to see whether an
appeal results in the same outcome |
|
|
WTR etc Plumber Held to be a ‘worker’ |
CA decision upheld |
|
|
Unfair dismissal Not employed |
No umbrella contract of employment
despite regular service |
|
|
2017 |
|
|
|
NMW & WTR ‘taxi’ drivers Individuals were ‘workers’ |
The appeal upheld the original decision; we understand an appeal to the Supreme
Court is under consideration. |
|
|
IR35 – NIC Within IR35, for NIC purposes, even
though outside for tax |
A consequence of special NIC rules apply ing
to actors. |
|
|
WTR etc Cycle courier Held to be a ‘worker’ |
Contractual documentation (again) not consistent with reality Obliged to perform the work personally – a ‘classic wage/work
bargain’, once he had accepted a job |
|
|
WTR etc Cycle courier Held to be a ‘worker’ |
Written agreement not consistent with reality Not IBOOA |
|
|
WTR etc Plumber Held to be a ‘worker’ |
Substitution: informal
concession, not contractual. Specified minimum working hours inconsistent with business-customer
relationship High degree of control ‘The case puts a spotlight on a business model
under which operatives are intended to appear to clients of the business as
working for the business, but at the same time the business itself seeks to
maintain that, as between itself and its operatives, there is a legal
relationship of client or customer and independent contractor rather than
employer and employee or worker.
’ |
|
|
2016 |
|
|
|
NMW & WTR ‘taxi’ drivers Individuals were ‘workers’ |
High degree of control |
|
|
Employment status – tax Haulage contractors Individuals were employed |
Lack of written agreement |
|
|
WTR-holiday pay Cycle courier Individual was ‘worker’ |
Written agreement not consistent with reality, hence
disregarded High degree of integration |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
|
NMW;
discrimination Whether a worker? Yes |
Actresses rehearsing for a production from which they had been
promised a nebulous ‘profit share’ were held to be workers. A curious case, probably of limited importance (ET; respondent represented himself, it appears
not particularly competently). |
|
|
Equality Act Whether ‘own company’ contractor
working for third party could be an ‘employee’ of a fourth party for the
purposes of the discrimination provisions of the Equality Act Not an employee. |
‘1 EU
equality law, now principally found in the Framework Directive 2000/78 (“the
Framework Directive”), provides a number of protections, including protection
from discrimination, for employees within the extended meaning of that term
applicable for the purposes of EU law. It is, therefore, often important to
know whether a person is an employee for this purpose. Some people provide
their services under a contract of employment. Others, however, may provide
their services through a third party and/or a company which they control. EU
law sometimes uses the term “worker”, but our domestic legislation uses the
term “employment” and cognate expressions, so I shall use the term “employee”
throughout even when referring to the concept of “worker” in EU law. 2. The
issue on this appeal is whether a person, who provided her services through
an employee-controlled company to a service company, is an employee. The
appellant seeks to establish that she is an employee, not of either of those
companies, or the client of the service company for whom the service company
provided her services but, on the particular facts of this case, of the
respondent (“WDF”), which managed the workplace for the client for whom her
services were engaged. 3. The
issue on this appeal is to be answered under the provisions of domestic law
which implement EU equality law. In England and Wales, the principal rights
conferred by EU equality law are to be found in the Equality Act 2010 (“EA
2010”). 4. In my
judgment, for the reasons given below, the appellant was not an employee of
WDF. The existence of the relationship of employment does not turn on whether
the parties entered into a formal contract which would be recognised in
domestic law as constituting employment but on whether it meets the criteria
laid down by EU law. These criteria are capable of being applied even in the
complex situation described in the preceding paragraph. The criteria include
a requirement that the putative employee should agree personally to perform
services, and a requirement that the putative employee should be subordinate
to the employer, that is, generally be bound to act on the employer’s
instructions. In determining whether the relationship is one of employment,
the court must look at the substance of the situation. In this case, the
Employment Tribunal (“the ET”) made clear findings of fact that the two
criteria I have just set out were not satisfied. Accordingly, in my judgment,
this appeal must fail.’ Employment means different things, according to the context. In the context of the EU-driven Equality
Act, in the absence of (a) a contract, (b) integration, (c) subordination,
there could be no employment. |
|
|
Tax Whether within former Agency workers
rules – ss44-47 ITEPA 2003 No |
Whether there was control as to the manner - ‘control-how’ Interesting discussion about ‘control-how’, where the work is not core
to the client’s business ‘3 … the main issue before us was the “agency worker” question, and in
that context principally the issue of whether the workers were subject to the
control and supervision or the right of control and supervision of either the
Appellant or indeed, probably more relevantly, the construction company
clients.’ ‘13.
While control by the agency could bring the “agency worker” provisions into
effect, it is clear that the more usual facts that will bring the relevant
provisions into operation are those where it is the client who has control or
the right of control over how the worker provides his services. Accordingly,
before addressing the limited evidence in this case, it is worth noting that
the provision is most likely to be engaged when the agency worker fulfils a
role in which it is natural and obvious that the client will exercise control
over how the worker performs his or her services. Thus in the case, for
instance, of secretaries provided by an agency who perform an identical
function to secretaries that the client might directly employ, and who will
be expected to fit in with all the work practices of the particular client,
the control requirement will clearly be satisfied. 14.
The most obvious situation in which the “control” requirement will not be
satisfied is where the particular service being rendered is one that is
extraneous to the basic activity of the client, such that it is entirely
natural that the client will have no control or right of control over the way
in which the services are provided. The example that we gave during the
hearing was of the service that the same construction companies might
contract to receive from a specialist provider responsible for servicing
their mechanical equipment. Thus, if the construction companies had various dumper
trucks and excavating equipment on site, and this equipment needed servicing,
and an independent entity contracted to service the equipment, we would not
expect a worker or sub-contracted worker (not an employee) of the maintenance
firm to be regarded as working under the control of the client. The
construction company would obviously indicate that it was time to service
some particular vehicles, or that one vehicle had suffered some defect, but
the worker would then do the required maintenance work on his own account,
and not remotely in accordance with the direction or control of the client. 15.
HMRC’s own guidance in relation to the nature of the “control” requirement
entirely accords with this example. The question is not whether the client
indicates the particular job to be done, but rather the issue of how it is to
be done. Admittedly in some circumstances (the surgeon, for instance), the
conclusion may be that a surgeon provided on an agency basis may be said to
act under the control of the client hospital, notwithstanding that nobody in
the hospital would presume to have any control over how the surgeon actually
performs his functions, but in that situation the “control” test is less
material because exactly the same reality applies to employed doctors and
surgeons. By contrast if the specialist service provider was maintaining the
x-ray equipment, an activity that the client hospital would purport to have
no knowledge about, or right of control as to how the function might be
performed, it is extremely unlikely that an independent contractor working
for the specialist provider would be regarded as working under the control of
the client hospital. 16.
As we have already indicated, HMRC had obtained no evidence or information
either from any of the workers or the clients (none of whom had been
approached) in relation to this crucial “control” test. None of the
construction company clients had even been identified.’ |
|
|
WTR Whether a worker, or self-employed? It was held that he was a worker |
Reiterated the requirements for ‘worker’ status – WTR/holiday pay See article Contractor UK
5-11-14 - Simplicity
still eludes employment status cases. '30 . With
regard to the question of control, I do not think the Employment Judge was
required to deal with the question of control in any more detail than he did.
No doubt the existence of a right to control can be relevant to the question
of a putative worker is carrying on a business of which the putative employer
is the client. In this case Mr Holden worked as a labourer within a workforce
controlled by a supervisor. It is fanciful to suppose that there was no right
of control, although no doubt in practice an experienced worker like Mr
Holden required very little supervision. The Employment Judge found in terms
that Mr Holden worked "under the instructions of the site
supervisor" at paragraph 7.3 of his reasons.’ ’33. In
this case the Employment Judge applied the statutory test. I do not think he
can be faulted for doing so. He also had the integration test in mind (see
paragraph 30 of his Reasons). Mr Holden did not actively market his services
as an independent person to the world in general. He was recruited by PCS to
work as a member of the workforce of PCS under a supervisor at a particular
site or to transfer goods between sites. I see no error of law in the Employment
Judge's reasoning.’ |
|
|
Whistleblowing; Whether a former partner in an LLP could be a ‘worker’,
for the purposes of s230(3) ERA 1996 Yes |
The court found that the LLP member fell within the definition of
worker in section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as she could not
market her services as a solicitor to anyone other than the LLP and was an
integral part of its business. It was not necessary for there to be an
element of subordination in order for worker status to be made out. While
subordination may sometimes be an aid to distinguishing workers from other selfemployed individuals, it is not a universal
characteristic of being a worker. |
|
|
Worker, or self-employed? – maybe |
Good summary of the distinctions between employee, worker, and
self-employed. A lack of
contractual obligations between assignments might indicate a lack of
subordination, consistent with the other party being no more than his client
or customer. See article Contractor UK
5-11-14 - Simplicity
still eludes employment status cases. |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
Dakin v
Brighton Marina Residential Management Company 2013 EAT |
Employment status (rights) – remitted
for rehearing |
Employee, worker, or neither? Another overview of what is required to constitute an employment
relationship |
|
Whether a contract of employment |
The Control required for contract to be of employment Whether a right of control is retained - a contractual right to exercise control to
a sufficient degree - not whether control is exercised – where does ultimate
right to control reside – control over (a) taking other work, (b) timing of
holidays See article Contractor UK
5-11-14 - Simplicity
still eludes employment status cases. |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
|
Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie CA 2012 – full
judgment [28-10-13: leave to appeal
refused.] |
Whether a contract of employment |
No obligation to pay; economic
risk; no contract of employment |
|
Employed or self
employed? - self-employed |
Discussion of integration |
|
|
Whether a ‘worker’; substitution |
An unfettered right to substitute means a contract cannot be an employment or worker
contract. Unfettered means freedom to
choose whether to substitute (as
opposed to eg only when unable or when sick), and is unaffected by the fact
that there may be conditions governing who may qualify to be a substitute |
|
|
Whistleblowing, breach of contract Whether a worker (s230(3)) No |
‘There was a deduction
for pension made by the Respondent, the employment of a shift manager, the
fact that he had to apply to be placed on the Respondent’s register, and that
he received training (albeit “minimal” training lasting a couple of hours).
The contract was a fait accompli, and he did not even arrange his own
transport and had to take the transport provided.’ However, he also did similar work for 2 other authorities, and was in
business on his own account. |
|
|
Deductions from wages; WTR Whether a self-employed doctor freelancing
for a private clinic was a worker (s230(3)) ERA 1996 Yes |
The Court of Appeal identified a need to distinguish between
individuals who market their services as an independent person to the world
in general (who will have clients or customers), and those who are recruited
by the principal to work as an integral part of the principal's operations.
Applying this test, Dr Westwood fell into the second category. HMG could not
be regarded as Dr Westwood's "client or customer"; it had
specifically recruited Dr Westwood to carry out surgical procedures on its
behalf and referred to him in its marketing materials as "one of our
surgeons". He was clearly an integral part of HMG's undertaking and was
providing services even though he was in business on his own account. This
case is a useful illustration of where the line is to be drawn between
workers and those carrying on a business undertaking, who are excluded from
the worker status definition. |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
Agency workers (s44) |
An unfettered right to substitute means an individual cannot be an agency worker. Working alongside / doing the same as regular staff may give rise to
an inference that there is a right on the part of the client to control |
|
|
IR35;
outside, then inside |
Changed status over time Engagements, initially for a few
months at a time and for specific projects, drifted over time into annual
renewals with no projects specified. Helpful outline in para 55 of what the
Tribunal perceived as the characteristics of a non-employee ‘contract worker’ |
|
|
Autoclenz Lrtd v Belcher 2011 SC
– press summary – full judgment |
Whether ‘workers’ for purposes of NMW
& WTR – yes they were |
Written contract did not reflect reality
of joint intent; what was the true
agreement between the parties? Inequality of bargaining power |
|
Employment status – tax Surgeon assisting private surgery Self-employed |
Written agreement made a difference |
|
|
Primary Path v HMRC 2011 FTT |
IR35 Outside |
|
|
Marlen
Ltd v HMRC 2011 FTT |
IR35;
outside |
MoO, control, all other factors |
|
IR35;
outside |
In business on own account,
hypothetical contract would have been for services |
|
|
IR35;
outside |
||
|
2010 |
|
|
|
Agency contract - attempt to imply
contract of employment with client failed |
'Control', whilst it may help to
decide whether a contract is one of employment, does not of itself prove that
there is a contract. |
|
|
Deductions from wages Whether a self-employed dentist was a
worker (s230(3)) No |
Obligation to provide a locum if unable to work for more than 5 days. Right of substitution meant he could not be a worker |
|
|
WTR Whether a worker No |
‘In determining whether a person qualifies as a ‘worker’ within
Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations
1998 the following principles
are established by the authorities in relation to the determination of
whether a contract provides for the provision of personal services. (a),
the question whether or not a contract provides for the performance of
personal services is essentially a matter of construction, (b), the
court is concerned with construing the contract, rather than with general
policy considerations, (c),
the fact that the individual chooses personally to supply the services is
irrelevant; the issue is whether he is contractually obliged to do so, (d),
the right or obligation to employ a substitute will not necessarily mean that
there is no obligation on the part of the “contractor” to perform personal
services unless that right is unfettered, (e), in
cases where the “contractor” is unable, as opposed to unwilling, to carry out
specified services, and has accepted an obligation to perform those services,
but is unable to do so, and where he himself does not bear the costs of
employing a substitute, a limited or occasional power of delegation may not be
inconsistent with a contract to provide personal services, (f), a
worker holds an intermediate position between an employee and someone who
carries on his own business undertaking.’
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
An obscure VAT point Whether Accenture staff, working for
Barclays but managed by Accenture under a separate agreement with Barclays (I
did say it was obscure!) were under the control of Barclays, within the
meaning of the Employment Agencies Act: No |
Discission of the proper
interpretation of ‘control’ in the definition of ‘employment business’ in the
Employment Agencies Act 1973 s13(3) -
‘control’ must mean
less than the full form of control required to establish an employment
relationship -
‘control’ may relate
to day to day control over the staff in respect of ‘the activity contemplated
by the supply agreement’, or ‘the matter in hand’ -
‘requires an overall
evaluative judgment to be made whether the predominant power of control of
what the employee does has been transferred … to ‘other persons’’ (para 41) -
‘where control is
divided between different persons, the natural meaning of ‘the control’ is
the predominant practical control over what the person does’ (para 43) In the context of this Act, ‘control’ may mean the predominant
practical control over what the individual does. |
|
Wright v R&C
Commissioners (2009) SpCW
|
employment
status - employed
|
'control'
(labourers)
full report not yet located |
Sherburn Aero v HMRC
(2009) SpC
summary
|
employment
status - not employed
|
The
meaning of 'control' (flight instructors)
|
M KOVATS v (1) TFO MANAGEMENT LLP (2) THE
FAMILY GROUP OF COMPANIES (2009) EAT
summary
|
Unfair
dismissal -not an employee
|
Considers the circumstances in which a
partner in an LLP might be an employee of the LLP |
Premier Groundworks Ltd v Jozsa 2009 EAT
summary
|
Working
Time regs - not a worker
|
Substitution - fettered / unfettered |
Littlewood (JL Windows) v
HMRC 2009 SpC
|
Employment
status - not employed
|
MoO & control (window fitters) |
|
WTR Whether a worker, or carrying on a
business undertaking? Not a worker |
‘He was … a trusted,
independent contractor who was at liberty to, and did, do work elsewhere. It
may not have been a vast amount of work and it may have been that the
Respondent was entirely happy for him to do it but that again was another
indication which the Tribunal took into account, and was entitled to take
into account, in reaching its conclusion that he had a business undertaking
of his own.‘ |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
HMRC v Larkstar 2008 ChD
|
IR35;
case originally heard by General Commissioners - remitted on 'case stated'
appeal to fresh Commissioners for re-hearing
|
IR35
appeals are probably best brought before Special Commissioners!
|
CASTLE
CONSTRUCTION (CHESTERFIELD) LTD v REVENUE & CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERS (2008) SpC
summary
|
Employment
status (PAYE); Self-employed
|
Bricklayers;
MoO; multiple engagers, little control,
BIBOYA, intention, industry practice
|
Redrow
Homes v Buckborough 2008 EAT
summary
|
Employment
status (working time); Employed
|
Sham
substitution provisions
|
Dragonfly
v HMRC 2008 ChD
summary
|
IR35; inside
|
See also comment here |
Alternative Book Co v
R&C 2008 SpC
summary
|
IR35; inside |
Substitution - a tie breaker, or a
factor amongst others? |
St Ives Plymouth Ltd v D
Hagerty 2008 EAT
summary
|
Employment; umbrella employment contract found to
exist |
MOO and casual workers |
James
v Greenwich 2008 CA
summary
|
Employment;
not employed
|
Agency
worker failed to secure employment rights against client
|
|
2007 |
|
|
Datagate v HMRC 2007 SpC
(summary)
|
IR35; outside
|
‘Ms Hartland’s evidence was necessarily
of a general nature and by reference to a generalised document concerning
employment at MBDA. I found her an
entirely honest and competent witness but unable to shed light on Mr
Barnett’s precise circumstances.
Whilst I am grateful for the helpful way she gave her evidence it did
not assist me in my task which is concerned with Mr Barnett’s individual
circumstances not the general employment position at MBDA.’ - a reminder that HR persons may not be best
placed to give evidence as to working practices! |
Dragonfly v HMRC 2007 SpC
summary
|
IR35; inside
|
Upheld on appeal – see above |
First Word v HMRC 2007 SpC
summary
|
IR35; outside
|
|
MKM
v HMRC 2007 SC
summary
|
IR35; inside
|
|
|
Whether a worker |
‘83 Since
when working she is plainly providing a service, the
two potentially relevant questions are whether she is obliged to perform the
service personally; and whether she is doing so in the course of a business.
The fact that there is no contract in place when she is not working - or that
if there is, it is not one which constitutes her a worker - tells us nothing
about her status when she is working. At that point there is a contract in
place. If the lack of any mutual obligations between engagements precluded a
finding that an individual was a worker when carrying out work pursuant to an
engagement, it would severely undermine the protection which the minimum wage
legislation is designed to confer. 84. Many
casual or seasonal workers, such as waiters or fruit pickers or casual
building labourers, will periodically work for the same employer but often
neither party has any obligations to the other in the gaps or intervals
between engagements. There is no reason in logic or justice why the lack of
worker status in the gaps should have any bearing on the status when working.
There may be no overarching or umbrella contract, and therefore no employment
status in the gaps, but that does not preclude such a status during the
period of work. If casual and seasonal workers were to be denied worker
status when actually working because of their lack of any such status when
not working, that would remove the protection of minimum wage and other basic
protections from the groups of workers most in need of it. ... 93.
Accordingly, in my view the fact that there is a lack of any mutual
obligations when no work is being performed is of little, if any,
significance when determining the status of the individual when work is
performed. At most it is merely one of the characteristics of the
relationship which may be taken into account when considering the contract in
context. It does not preclude a finding that the individual was a worker, or
indeed an employee, when actually at work." |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
WTR Whether a worker? No |
‘The Claimant was carrying on business on a self- employed basis. His
accounts alone, which record that in the year ended 5 April 2004, he received
income ‘From CIS Contracts’ (our emphasis) provide powerful evidence to that
effect, as does the fact that he had a CIS certificate which he presented to
the Respondent. Further, the CIS certificates in respect of his earnings from
Alder Joinery Ltd during the period that he was also performing work for the Respondent
and the undisputed evidence that the Claimant was free to work for others and
received an hourly rate which was intended to provide an element of cover for
his overheads are highly relevant. All these matters provide, in our view,
clear indicators that the Claimant was running a business and that the work
he performed for the Respondent was one of his business activities. The fact
that the work was performed by him personally does not detract from or
negative that fact. That being so, he is not a “worker” entitled to holiday
pay.’ |
|
Netherlane v
York 2005 SpC
summary
|
IR35;
inside
|
Who
is the client?
|
|
WTR Whether a worker Case remitted |
‘What
is meant by “mutuality of obligations” where the claim relies on the Working
Time Regulations; whether finding that there was no mutuality of obligations
was inconsistent with holding that the Claimant was a “worker”; whether it is
sufficient for claim under the W.T.R. for there to have been a series of
separate short-term assignments, as opposed to one over-arching agreement;
and what should be the correct approach to deriving the terms of a contract
from the performances of it by the parties in the absence of any written or
express oral agreement. Unclear ET decision remitted.’ ET should focus on the questions: ‘(a) was there one
contract or a succession of shorter assignments? (b) if one contract, is it the natural inference from the facts
that the Claimant agreed to undertake some minimum, or at least some
reasonable, amount of work for Cotswold in return for being given that work,
or pay?
(c) if so, was there such control as to make it a contract of
employment so as to give rise to rights of unfair dismissal, as well as a
right to holiday pay?
(d) if there was insufficient control, or any other factor, negating
employment, whether the Claimant was nonetheless obliged to do some minimum
(or reasonable) amount of work personally?‘ ’53
"... focus upon whether the purported worker actively markets his
services as an independent person to the world in general (a person who will
thus have a client or customer) on the one hand, or whether he is recruited
by the principal to work for that principal as an integral part of the
principal's operations, will in most cases demonstrate on which side of the
line a given person falls." |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Future On-line v HMIT 2004 ChD
summary
|
IR35;
inside
|
|
Usetech v HMIT 2004 ChD
summary
|
IR35;
inside
|
|
Ansell
v HMIT 2004 SpC
summary
|
IR35;
outside
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
Tilbury
v HMIT 2003 SpC
summary
|
IR35
|
Witness
summons should be issued to client even if commercially prejudicial to
ongoing relations
|
Synaptek v HMIT 2003 ChD
summary
|
IR35;
inside
|
|
Synaptek v HMIT 2003 ChD
|
IR35
|
preliminary
issues
|
|
2002 |
|
|
Lime
IT v CIR 2002 SpC
summary
|
IR35;
outside
|
|
FS Consulting v HMIT 2002 SpC
summary
|
IR35;
inside
|
|
|
WTR – whether a ‘worker’ – yes |
Distinction between fettered and unfettered rights of substitution – a
right when ‘unable’ is not unfettered Consideration of meaning of ‘business undertaking’ |
|
|
2001 |
|
|
R v IRC (PCG) CA
2001
|
IR35
|
|
R v IRC (PCG) QBD
|
IR35
|
|
Montgomery v Underwood 2001 CA
summary
|
Employment;
not employed
|
Importance
of MOO and control
|
|
IR35; inside |
|
|
|
Last century! |
|
|
Clark v Oxford 1997 CA
summary
|
Employment;
not employed
|
MOO
|
SSE v McMeechan
1996 CA
summary
|
Employment;
not employed
|
Agency
employee with series of engagements; no overarching contract
|
|
Employment |
In business on own account – being
good at what he does; painting a picture |
|
|
Employment; umbrella employment contract found to
exist |
MOO and casual workers |
|
|
Employment; umbrella employment contract found not to
exist |
MOO and casual workers |
|
Zuijus v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd 1955
|
Workmen’s
compensation (Australia) – essentially, Employment status
|
- lawful
authority to command, where there is scope for it, may be sufficient ‘control’
for the purposes of the second MacKenna test - if only in incidental or collateral
matters - the fact
that the core functions of the engagement may not be susceptible to such
control is not necessarily of itself so
conclusive as to cause the second MacKenna test to
be failed - ‘an artisan may be an
independent contractor whilst the most highly skilled technician is a
servant’.
|
|
AWR cases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term
|
Meaning
|
MOO
|
Mutuality
of Obligation
|
IBOYOA
|
In
business on your own account
|
P&P
|
Part
and parcel (of the clients business organization)
|
This is the IR35 and
Employment Status Cases page - This page is primarily relevant to
Contractors & Freelancers
Links to: Index - Welcome / What We Do - Contact Details & Availability - Contact us – Terms of Business
This page was last updated 9th
December 2020.
RS Legal
Limited is a company
incorporated in England (company no 05868307, VAT no 905-8356-13), registered
office Suite 3B2 Northside House, Mount Pleasant, Barnet EN4 9EB is licensed to
use the registered trade mark egos in connection with the provision of
services within UK. RS Legal Ltd provides services primarily to
consultancies, agencies, and other corporate entities.
Office address: Eastside, Kings Cross
Station, London N1C 4AX
Egos Legal Limited is a company incorporated in England (company no 12049156,
VAT no 328-0411-32), registered office Suite 3B2 Northside House, Mount
Pleasant, Barnet EN4 9EB is licensed to use the registered trade mark egos
in connection with the provision of services within UK. Egos Legal Ltd
provides services primarily to Umbrella and Management Companies.
Office address: Eastside, Kings
Cross Station, London N1C 4AX
Egos
Consultancy Limited is a company
incorporated in
Disclaimer
of liability: The information on these pages is provided free and for information
only, and is provided 'as is'. Whilst believed to be correct, it is in no way
comprehensive. It is provided for your interest only and is not intended to be
relied on as formal legal advice. The posting of information on these pages is
not intended to create a lawyer-client relationship, and you should not act or
rely on this information without seeking professional advice. No liability is
accepted therefore for any errors, or for any losses that may be incurred if it
is relied on.
Copyright
details: © Egos Consultancy Ltd – ecl@egos.co.uk 2000 – 2020 - All
rights reserved.
You may read these pages on-line, and download them to read
later, for your own personal use. This copyright
notice must appear on every page that you print from here. You must not redistribute these pages or any
part of them in any form or medium without first obtaining my consent.
You are welcome to set up links to this website from others - just mail me to
tell me if you're doing this please..
Privacy and cookies: Simple. This site
does not collect personal data, we don’t track use of these pages, we don’t use
cookies. If you provide us with personal
data (eg by email) we will only use such data for the purpose for which it was
provided.
