|
Case name, year; court |
What the case was |
Particular issues raised |
Notes |
|
JLJ Services
Limited v HMRC 2011 FTT full
judgment |
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 Ôcontract
workerÕ |
|
Autoclenz Lrtd
v Belcher 2011 SC – press
summary – full
judgment |
Whether ÔworkersÕ 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 |
|
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 |
|
||
|
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. |
|
|
Wright
v R&C Commissioners
(2009) SC
|
employment status - employed
|
'control' (labourers)
|
full report not yet located |
Sherburn Aero v HMRC (2009) SC
|
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
|
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
|
Working Time regs - not a worker
|
Substitution - fettered /
unfettered |
|
Littlewood (JL Windows) v HMRC 2009 SpC
|
Employment status - not employed
|
MoO & control (window
fitters) |
|
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
|
Employment status
(PAYE); Self-employed
|
Bricklayers;
MoO; multiple engagers, little control,
BIBOYA, intention, industry practice
|
|
Redrow Homes v Buckborough
2008 EAT
|
Employment status
(working time); Employed
|
Sham substitution
provisions
|
|
Dragonfly v HMRC
2008 ChD
|
IR35; inside
|
See also comment here
|
|
Alternative
Book Co v R&C 2008 SpC
|
IR35;
inside |
Substitution - a tie breaker,
or a factor amongst others? |
|
St
Ives Plymouth Ltd v D Hagerty 2008 EAT
|
Employment;
umbrella employment contract found to exist |
MOO and casual workers |
|
Datagate
v HMRC 2007 SC
|
IR35; outside
|
||
Dragonfly v HMRC
2007 SC
|
IR35; inside
|
Upheld on appeal
|
|
First Word v HMRC
2007 SC
|
IR35;
outside
|
||
MKM v HMRC 2007
SC
|
IR35;
inside
|
||
James v Greenwich 2008 CA
|
Employment; not employed
|
Agency worker failed to secure employment rights
against client
|
|
Netherlane v York 2005 SC
|
IR35; inside
|
Who is the client?
|
|
Future
On-line v HMIT 2004 ChD
|
IR35; inside
|
|
|
Usetech v HMIT 2004 ChD
|
IR35; inside
|
|
|
Ansell v
HMIT 2004 SC
|
IR35; outside
|
|
|
Tilbury v HMIT 2003 SC
|
IR35
|
Witness summons should be issued to client even if
commercially prejudicial to ongoing relations
|
|
Synaptek v HMIT 2003 ChD
|
IR35; inside
|
|
|
Synaptek v HMIT 2003 ChD
|
IR35
|
preliminary issues
|
|
Lime IT v CIR 2002 SC
|
IR35; outside
|
|
|
FS Consulting v HMIT 2002 SC
|
IR35; inside
|
|
|
R v IRC (PCG) CA 2001
|
IR35
|
|
|
R v IRC (PCG) QBD
|
IR35
|
|
|
Montgomery v Underwood 2001 CA
|
Employment; not employed
|
Importance of MOO and control
|
|
|
IR35; inside |
|
|
|
|
|